-

[Lizakers]

1. Stop comparing Pakistand and Iran. they are completely different in that the people in Pakistan are much more religious. You even see Pakistani people inareas of the country who help hide Al Qaeda members and harbor terrorists. You would never seen Iranian civilians helping terrorists.

Iranian people are not very fanatical or fundamental about Islam. The governments pretends to be very Islamic, but the people are not. They are forced to bedevout Muslims because it is the law.

also, the average Pakistani citizen enjoys more freedom than the average Iranian. Women in Pakistan have more freedom. Although, they don't have ademocracy, their dictatorship is less brutal than the one in Iran.

2. Stop acting as if the late Shah's regime was worse than what Iranians suffer now. Under the Shah, the people had every freedome except ONE - theycouldn't speak our or write negatively about the Shah. And he definitely brutalized people who were against him, but in no way did he violate basic humanrights of Iranians like the clerical government does today.

When the 1979 revolution happened, the incoming regime fooled the people with their empty promises and the people fell for it. 95% of the people today wouldrather have the monarchy back if given a choice. Instead, they've been living in fear for 30 years of a brutal Islamic government.


Yes, the Shah was Pro-West. But he loved his country and for the most part, he adored the Iranian people and culture. Now, the mullahs in power only lovepower, money, and funding terrorism.


This is no longer about the election. The elections results are being used as an excuse to protest and vent their 30 years of frustrations over lack of libertyand human rights.

 

[tommykairaa]

 

[antonlavey]

I get the feeling this is only going to get worse.

 

[mo matik]

This is no longer about the election. The elections results are being used as an excuse to protest and vent their 30 years of frustrations over lack of liberty and human rights.


A way to prove this would be if Mousavi called for an end to protests, and protests continued.

 

[Lizakers]

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

This is no longer about the election. The elections results are being used as an excuse to protest and vent their 30 years of frustrations over lack of liberty and human rights.

A way to prove this would be if Mousavi called for an end to protests, and protests continued.

It has already been proven. People are chanting "Death to the dictator" in the streets. People are publicly defying the orders of the SupremeLeader and thereby making his power illegitimate. Also, people in Iran are saying so themselves - that this is about freedom and being fed up.

The proof is already there. This is not about Mousavi or the election. The people are too smart and they know Mousavi is just the lesser of 2 evils.


Mousavi knows if he gives up now, he will likely be arrested and killed. So it's all or nothing for him now. He has no choice but to continue defiance.

 

[kash55]

-

 

[mo matik]

.

 

[hazeleyed honey]

Originally Posted by Lizaker4Lizife

2. Stop acting as if the late Shah's regime was worse than what Iranians suffer now. Under the Shah, the people had every freedome except ONE - they couldn't speak our or write negatively about the Shah. And he definitely brutalized people who were against him, but in no way did he violate basic human rights of Iranians like the clerical government does today.
How is that any freedom or any different than under the Islamic rulers after the 1979 Revolution? What freedoms are you talking about? Of course he violated basic human rights which is a heck lot more than one violation of freedoms, including the denial of freedom of speech. Today's Iranians can somehow criticize the system, the government's economic policies and so on. They enjoy much more freedom of expression than when under the Shah. Why do you think the Iranians turned on the Shah in supporting the religious revolutionary movement? It is because they had not much freedom in the country.

When the 1979 revolution happened, the incoming regime fooled the people with their empty promises and the people fell for it. 95% of the people today would rather have the monarchy back if given a choice. Instead, they've been living in fear for 30 years of a brutal Islamic government.
Yes, I agree that the revolutionaries gave empty promises. I do not think the majority of Iranians would want to get the Shah regime back. Only those you were in the upper class, linked to the Shah's royal family, and also had in part in plundering the poor would want the Shah back.

Yes, the Shah was Pro-West. But he loved his country and for the most part, he adored the Iranian people and culture. Now, the mullahs in power only love power, money, and funding terrorism.
What guarantees you that the Shah loved the Iranian people and his country? He plundered the country, was corrupt and ruled with an iron fist and oppressed his people. As you know, he send his secret police (the Savak) on a blood killing rampage of anyone who dared to speak ill of him and criticize his regime. That is not a character of a man who loved his country. He is no different than the Mullahs. They are both the same but on different sides of the coin.

I do not know how you can criticize the mullahs of Iran but then give supportive words about the Shah.

 

[mo matik]

Mousavi knows if he gives up now, he will likely be arrested and killed. So it's all or nothing for him now. He has no choice but to continue defiance.


People are dying.

I would expect a presidential candidate, especially one with a good amount of support, to place his peoples safety over his own. That's ideally, of course.I don't know much about Mousavi other than that he killed a lot of civilians himself.

Even if it isn't about him anymore, it's still his responsibility to at least try and curb the violence. I do blame him for that much.

 

[kash55]

-

 

[kash55]

-

 

[Lizakers]

Yes, I agree that the revolutionaries gave empty promises. I do not think the majority of Iranians would want to get the Shah regime back. Only those you were in the upper class, linked to the Shah's royal family, and also had in part in plundering the poor would want the Shah back.

What guarantees you that the Shah loved the Iranian people and his country? He plundered the country, was corrupt and ruled with an iron fist and oppressed his people. As you know, he send his secret police (the Savak) on a blood killing rampage of anyone who dared to speak ill of him and criticize his regime. That is not a character of a man who loved his country. He is no different than the Mullahs. They are both the same but on different sides of the coin.

I do not know how you can criticize the mullahs of Iran but then give supportive words about the Shah.


Please stop. You do not know Iran, its people and its history the way that I do. Stop spreading ignorance in this thread. you always come tocombat me whenever I post about these types of issues.

Even the harshest critics of the Shah and the Pahlavi family always say that the one thing good about him was his love of Iran and Iranian people.

The things he did to advance the society, culture, arts, education, infrastructure, social programs, etc will never be forgotten.

He could have put an end to the 1979 revolution in a matter of hours if he would have killed the civilian protesters in the beginning. Instead, he famouslyfled the country because he refused to hurt his own people who were protesting against him.

His generals famously begged him and kissed his feet so he could allow them to kill the protesters in the early stages, but the the Shah did not grant thempermission.
Thus, the protests grew and the revolution ensued.

The things the Shah did in his nearly 3 decades of power to lift the stature of Iran around the world and make it one of the most respected, wealthy, pridefuland powerful countries in the world cannot be denied.

Stop spewing hatred and ignorance. You are not Iranian and you do not know the things I know from first-hand accounts

Summary of Shah:

His White Revolution, a series of economic and social reforms intended to transform Iran into a global power, succeeded in modernizing the nation, nationalizing many natural resources and extending suffrage to women, among other things. However, the decline of the traditional power of the Shi'a clergy due to parts of the reforms increased opposition.
While a Muslim himself, the Shah gradually lost support from the Shi'a clergy of Iran, particularly due to his strong policy of modernization, secularization and conflict with the traditional class of merchants known as bazaari, and recognition of Israel.


EDIT: As a women, you should appreciate what the Shah did:

Under Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's father, the government supported advancements by women against child marriage, polygamy, veiling, exclusion from public society, and education segregation. However, independent feminist political groups were shut down and forcibly integrated into one state-created institution, which maintained many paternalistic views. Despite substantial opposition from Shiite religious jurists, the Iranian feminist movement, led by activists such as Fatemah Sayyeh, achieved further advancement under Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. His regime's changes focused on the civil sphere, and private-oriented family law remained restrictive, although the 1967 and 1975 Family Protection Laws attempted to reform this trend.[sup][56][/sup] Specifically, women gained the right to become ministers such as Farrokhroo Parsa and judges such as Shirin Ebadi, as well as any other profession regardless of their gender.

Unless, of course, you like the idea of women being oppressed by Islamic governments. The 1979 revolution set back women's rights 50 years.

More on his legacy:

In the 1990s and the decade following 2000, the Shah's reputation has staged something of a revival, with many Iranians looking back on his era as a time when Iran was more prosperous[sup][52][/sup][sup][53][/sup] and the government less oppressive.[sup][54][/sup] Journalist Afshin Molavi reports even members of the uneducated poor - traditionally core supporters of the revolution that overthrew the Shah - making remarks such as 'God bless the Shah's soul, the economy was better then;' and finds that "books about the former Shah (even censored ones) sell briskly," while "books of the Rightly Guided Path sit idle."[sup][55][/sup]
Quotes from the Shah:

Revolution

• When asked whether he thought that Iranians had been ungrateful towards him

Ingratitude is the prerogative of the people.

-[sup][61][/sup][sup][62][/sup]

• The role of the U.S.

I did not know it then - perhaps I did not want to know - but it is clear to me now that the Americans wanted me out. Clearly this is what the human rights advocates in the State Department wanted... What was I to make of the Administration's sudden decision to call former Under Secretary of State George Ball to the White House as an adviser on Iran?... Ball was among those Americans who wanted to abandon me and ultimately my country.

-[sup][63][/sup]

• Promise to the nation

You, the people of Iran, rose against injustice and corruption... I too, have heard the voice of your revolution. As the Shah of Iran, and as an Iranian, I will support the revolution of my people. I promise that the previous mistakes, unlawful acts and injustice will not be repeated.

-[sup][64][/sup][sup][65][/sup]


http://
[h3] Role of women[/h3]

... women- who after all make up half the population- should be treated as equals...

-[sup][68][/sup]

I have never believed that women were diabolical creatures if they showed their faces or arms, or went swimming, or skied or played basketball. If some women wish to live veiled, then it is their choice, but why deprive half of our youth of the healthy pleasure of sports?

-[sup][68][/sup]


http://
[h3]
You will never see quotes like these from the clerical regime and the mullahs.

The Shah was a prestigious and well-educated man. He had his faults of course, but was far better than the uneducated monkeys in power today. [/h3]

 

[essential1]

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

Mousavi knows if he gives up now, he will likely be arrested and killed. So it's all or nothing for him now. He has no choice but to continue defiance.

People are dying.

I would expect a presidential candidate, especially one with a good amount of support, to place his peoples safety over his own. That's ideally, of course. I don't know much about Mousavi other than that he killed a lot of civilians himself.

Even if it isn't about him anymore, it's still his responsibility to at least try and curb the violence. I do blame him for that much.
1. He has no control. The voice of the people is too strong now that he can ask them to stop and they won't

2. Curb the violence? The citizens are not even doing 1% of the violence. They are not beating down the guards none of that. Maybe Ahmadinejahd should controlhis forces.

But he has literally no control. This is something the citizens want, they feel disenfranchised and this is what they are doing with or without Mousavi'sblessing.

 

[mo matik]

To overthrow a repressive regime, unfortunately, blood will to shed.

People are not afraid to die, they are tired of 30 years of ruthless repressive, restriction of freedoms, equality, and speech.


The death toll is around 150 as it stands.

Any and all of the message that could be sent with peaceful protest has been sent. They government will continue to fight the protesters with violence. Wehave seen absolutely 0 progress made.

What they need now is not more bloodshed, but rather international support, which I highly doubt they will receive.

 

[mo matik]

Originally Posted by Essential1

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

Mousavi knows if he gives up now, he will likely be arrested and killed. So it's all or nothing for him now. He has no choice but to continue defiance.

People are dying.

I would expect a presidential candidate, especially one with a good amount of support, to place his peoples safety over his own. That's ideally, of course. I don't know much about Mousavi other than that he killed a lot of civilians himself.

Even if it isn't about him anymore, it's still his responsibility to at least try and curb the violence. I do blame him for that much.

1. He has no control. The voice of the people is too strong now that he can ask them to stop and they won't

2. Curb the violence? The citizens are not even doing 1% of the violence. They are not beating down the guards none of that. Maybe Ahmadinejahd should control his forces.

But he has literally no control. This is something the citizens want, they feel disenfranchised and this is what they are doing with or without Mousavi's blessing.

I disagree man, I think he still has a strong impact on the citizens. This is of course, just a hunch, but he continues to send messages to thepublic and they have not varied from what he is asking of them in the least.

I know the citizens aren't doing anything really. But by going into their homes and stopping the protests, they would stop the violence. Don't get mewrong I am not in favor of the corrupt government in Iran, although I do have respect Ahmadinejad's international policy, I have no knowledge of hisdomestic policies.

But a government that has killed 150 of it's own people in a week will not hesitate to kill more, is my point.

 

[dieselg5]

Originally Posted by kash55

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

Mousavi knows if he gives up now, he will likely be arrested and killed. So it's all or nothing for him now. He has no choice but to continue defiance.

People are dying.

I would expect a presidential candidate, especially one with a good amount of support, to place his peoples safety over his own. That's ideally, of course. I don't know much about Mousavi other than that he killed a lot of civilians himself.

Even if it isn't about him anymore, it's still his responsibility to at least try and curb the violence. I do blame him for that much.

To overthrow a repressive regime, unfortunately, blood will be shed.

People are not afraid to die. They are tired of 30 years of ruthless repressive, restriction of freedoms, equality, and speech.

For the first time in the Islamic government history people have stood up to the Supreme Leader, this is not something that will go away.







I agree 100% with this. People have thrown all caution aside. This is the first time the people are publicly going against the Supreme Leader of Iran. Everyother order he gave the country, they obeyed. On Friday he told them to stop protesting, and they did not. People have been heard yelling "Marg barKhamenei". Death to Khamenei.

 

[essential1]

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

Originally Posted by Essential1

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

Mousavi knows if he gives up now, he will likely be arrested and killed. So it's all or nothing for him now. He has no choice but to continue defiance.

People are dying.

I would expect a presidential candidate, especially one with a good amount of support, to place his peoples safety over his own. That's ideally, of course. I don't know much about Mousavi other than that he killed a lot of civilians himself.

Even if it isn't about him anymore, it's still his responsibility to at least try and curb the violence. I do blame him for that much.

1. He has no control. The voice of the people is too strong now that he can ask them to stop and they won't

2. Curb the violence? The citizens are not even doing 1% of the violence. They are not beating down the guards none of that. Maybe Ahmadinejahd should control his forces.

But he has literally no control. This is something the citizens want, they feel disenfranchised and this is what they are doing with or without Mousavi's blessing.

I disagree man, I think he still has a strong impact on the citizens. This is of course, just a hunch, but he continues to send messages to the public and they have not varied from what he is asking of them in the least.

I know the citizens aren't doing anything really. But by going into their homes and stopping the protests, they would stop the violence. Don't get me wrong I am not in favor of the corrupt government in Iran, although I do have respect Ahmadinejad's international policy, I have no knowledge of his domestic policies.

But a government that has killed 150 of it's own people in a week will not hesitate to kill more, is my point.



alright I get your point a lot more now..
I understand what you are saying but if the citizens really hate this government collectively to the point they want a change and change is denied to them.When they want to revolt do you really think they will stand down? Imagine if we stood down when the British started killing Colonists, different situation butbroadly similar.

 

[Lizakers]

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

Originally Posted by Essential1

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

Mousavi knows if he gives up now, he will likely be arrested and killed. So it's all or nothing for him now. He has no choice but to continue defiance.

People are dying.

I would expect a presidential candidate, especially one with a good amount of support, to place his peoples safety over his own. That's ideally, of course. I don't know much about Mousavi other than that he killed a lot of civilians himself.

Even if it isn't about him anymore, it's still his responsibility to at least try and curb the violence. I do blame him for that much.

1. He has no control. The voice of the people is too strong now that he can ask them to stop and they won't

2. Curb the violence? The citizens are not even doing 1% of the violence. They are not beating down the guards none of that. Maybe Ahmadinejahd should control his forces.

But he has literally no control. This is something the citizens want, they feel disenfranchised and this is what they are doing with or without Mousavi's blessing.

I disagree man, I think he still has a strong impact on the citizens. This is of course, just a hunch, but he continues to send messages to the public and they have not varied from what he is asking of them in the least.

I know the citizens aren't doing anything really. But by going into their homes and stopping the protests, they would stop the violence. Don't get me wrong I am not in favor of the corrupt government in Iran, although I do have respect Ahmadinejad's international policy, I have no knowledge of his domestic policies.

But a government that has killed 150 of it's own people in a week will not hesitate to kill more, is my point.



I'm curious. what exactly do you respect about his international policy? considering that he has absolutely NO POWER with respect to policy-making.

do you respect his empty rhetoric denouncing the Holocaust?
do you respect his false claim of having a PhD.?
do you respect his claiming that Iran is the most stable country in the world?
do you respect his defiance of the United Nations?
do you respect him strengthening ties with notorious U.S. enemies like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro?

just curious

 

[hazeleyed honey]

Originally Posted by Lizaker4Lizife

I should stop about what? What ignorance am I spewing exactly? What makes more your opinion more valid than mine about The Shah? Just because youare Iranian and I am not? The only kind of Iranians I know who are so fond of the Shah are the ones whose families lived well under him because they supportedhim or were from the upper class. That is why when the Revolution of 1979 happened, a lot of them fled out of Iran when the Shah was overthrown.

What you posted, the same can be said about Saddam Hussein in terms of advancing women's rights, education,the economy of Iraq,etc. Does that take awayfrom his brutality as a dictator?

You think that the Revolution was only done by the Islamists and radicals? Not at all. The actual revolution was made by the working class and urban poor. Itwas forms of protests such as strikes, workplace occupations and massive demonstrations that toppled the Shah's regime. It should be added that the demandsof the workers were not religious, but economic and political.

The Shah's brutal rule was hated by most Iranians and that is a fact. He was a brutal,vile,disgusting,corrupt sad excuse of a human being for all the bloodhe has on his hands. If the Shah was not as bad than you claim, then why did the revolution take place?

 

[mo matik]

Originally Posted by Lizaker4Lizife

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

Originally Posted by Essential1

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

Mousavi knows if he gives up now, he will likely be arrested and killed. So it's all or nothing for him now. He has no choice but to continue defiance.

People are dying.

I would expect a presidential candidate, especially one with a good amount of support, to place his peoples safety over his own. That's ideally, of course. I don't know much about Mousavi other than that he killed a lot of civilians himself.

Even if it isn't about him anymore, it's still his responsibility to at least try and curb the violence. I do blame him for that much.

1. He has no control. The voice of the people is too strong now that he can ask them to stop and they won't

2. Curb the violence? The citizens are not even doing 1% of the violence. They are not beating down the guards none of that. Maybe Ahmadinejahd should control his forces.

But he has literally no control. This is something the citizens want, they feel disenfranchised and this is what they are doing with or without Mousavi's blessing.

I disagree man, I think he still has a strong impact on the citizens. This is of course, just a hunch, but he continues to send messages to the public and they have not varied from what he is asking of them in the least.

I know the citizens aren't doing anything really. But by going into their homes and stopping the protests, they would stop the violence. Don't get me wrong I am not in favor of the corrupt government in Iran, although I do have respect Ahmadinejad's international policy, I have no knowledge of his domestic policies.

But a government that has killed 150 of it's own people in a week will not hesitate to kill more, is my point.

I'm curious. what exactly do you respect about his international policy? considering that he has absolutely NO POWER with respect to policy-making.

do you respect his empty rhetoric denouncing the Holocaust?
do you respect his false claim of having a PhD.?
do you respect his claiming that Iran is the most stable country in the world?
do you respect his defiance of the United Nations?
do you respect him strengthening ties with notorious U.S. enemies like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro?

just curious
-His denouncing the Holocaust is way too often blown out of proportion. His statement concerning the Holocaust was merely a criticism of the factthat himself and others are not allowed to research first hand sources of the historical event so widely portrayed in films, tv, and novels.
-I don't know anything about his PhD being real or not, but regardless, I don't see how it has anything to do with his international policy.

What I do like about him is his resilience to simply being pushed around my stronger forces. He resisted Bush because he acted as any of us would. Would youtake orders from a President with such terrible approval from the entire world? Being an educated man I'm sure, anyone with enough guts would refuse tolisten to Bushs' hipocracy concerning nuclear arms. You can have nuclear weapons but I cannot? Iran is no Al-Qaeda subsidiary faction. It is a highlyliterate intelligent state. Serious development of a nuclear disarmament plan will take place when America takes the initiative to lead by example. Unwillingness to do this is simply hipocracy.

We have seen Ahmadinjedad negatively respond to Bush's attempts to bully, and just recently, positively respond to such a seemingly insignificant act ofdiplomacy by Obama in the form of a recorded speech. This is a display of the dynamics necessary for a development of relations between the 2 countries. Ahmadinjedad is not just some stuck up guy who hates America and wants to rebel; he is willing to cooperate if treated as an equal.

In fact, he is probably the most misquoted leader in the world. People continue to throw around exaggerated translations concerning Israel and the Holocaustto this day. The man has a strong backbone, and was not willing to break it for the US, or anyone. If addressed appropriately and with equal respect, he hasshown much potential for cooperation. That's what I respect.

 

[Lizakers]

Originally Posted by Hazeleyed Honey

Originally Posted by Lizaker4Lizife

I should stop about what? What ignorance am I spewing exactly? What makes more your opinion more valid than mine about The Shah? Just because you are Iranian and I am not? The only kind of Iranians I know who are so fond of the Shah are the ones whose families lived well under him because they supported him or were from the upper class. That is why when the Revolution of 1979 happened, a lot of them fled out of Iran when the Shah was overthrown.

What you posted, the same can be said about Saddam Hussein in terms of advancing women's rights, education,the economy of Iraq,etc. Does that take away from his brutality as a dictator?

You think that the Revolution was only done by the Islamists and radicals? Not at all. The actual revolution was made by the working class and urban poor. It was forms of protests such as strikes, workplace occupations and massive demonstrations that toppled the Shah's regime. It should be added that the demands of the workers were not religious, but economic and political.

The Shah's brutal rule was hated by most Iranians and that is a fact. He was a brutal,vile,disgusting,corrupt sad excuse of a human being for all the blood he has on his hands. If the Shah was not as bad than you claim, then why did the revolution take place?

The Shah was moving towards secularism and the clerics were losing power. Khomeini spoke to the religious uneducated villagers and he brainwashedthem with his empty promises of total freedom, a monthly allowance from oil revenues, and many other lies. The people thought anything would be better betterthan the Shah, and they were absolutely WRONG.

Khomeini instituted Sharia law and extreme fundamentalism that repressed the people for 3 decades. The revolution promised heaven but created hell on earth.

The Shia uprising and Western backlash and resentment towards the Pro-West Shah led to the revolution.

Like I said, he had many faults. But they pale in comparison to the Islamic Republic and the brutalities they have committed in the name of their peacefulreligion.

 

[hazeleyed honey]

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

-His denouncing the Holocaust is way too often blown out of proportion. His statement concerning the Holocaust was merely a criticism of the fact that himself and others are not allowed to research first hand sources of the historical event so widely portrayed in films, tv, and novels.
-I don't know anything about his PhD being real or not, but regardless, I don't see how it has anything to do with his international policy.

What I do like about him is his resilience to simply being pushed around my stronger forces. He resisted Bush because he acted as any of us would. Would you take orders from a President with such terrible approval from the entire world? Being an educated man I'm sure, anyone with enough guts would refuse to listen to Bushs' hipocracy concerning nuclear arms. You can have nuclear weapons but I cannot? Iran is no Al-Qaeda subsidiary faction. It is a highly literate intelligent state. Serious development of a nuclear disarmament plan will take place when America takes the initiative to lead by example. Unwillingness to do this is simply hipocracy.

We have seen Ahmadinjedad negatively respond to Bush's attempts to bully, and just recently, positively respond to such a seemingly insignificant act of diplomacy by Obama in the form of a recorded speech. This is a display of the dynamics necessary for a development of relations between the 2 countries. Ahmadinjedad is not just some stuck up guy who hates America and wants to rebel; he is willing to cooperate if treated as an equal.

In fact, he is probably the most misquoted leader in the world. People continue to throw around exaggerated translations concerning Israel and the Holocaust to this day. The man has a strong backbone, and was not willing to break it for the US, or anyone. If addressed appropriately and with equal respect, he has shown much potential for cooperation. That's what I respect.

I agree Mo. The man is still an +@$!!#@. However, I believe that the Western media outlets demonize him even more and takeany opportunity to take some of his speeches and completely miscontrue and mistranslate them on purpose. That is the issue I have. It is all ploy andpropaganda. It is also due to poor translation. It is just like how they manipulated that he claimed he wants Israel to be wiped off the map, which wascompletely miscontrued by the media too.
From what I remember, he has acknowledged the Holocaust numerous times. He claimed at the speech he did inColumbia that he did not deny the Holocaust. From what I gather, Ahmadinejad does not deny the Holocaust, but his issue is with its exploitation when it comesto Zionists and their supporters who use the existence of the Holocaust as a means for oppressing Palestinians and taking their land andterritory.

 

[Lizakers]

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

Originally Posted by Lizaker4Lizife

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

Originally Posted by Essential1

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

Mousavi knows if he gives up now, he will likely be arrested and killed. So it's all or nothing for him now. He has no choice but to continue defiance.

People are dying.

I would expect a presidential candidate, especially one with a good amount of support, to place his peoples safety over his own. That's ideally, of course. I don't know much about Mousavi other than that he killed a lot of civilians himself.

Even if it isn't about him anymore, it's still his responsibility to at least try and curb the violence. I do blame him for that much.

1. He has no control. The voice of the people is too strong now that he can ask them to stop and they won't

2. Curb the violence? The citizens are not even doing 1% of the violence. They are not beating down the guards none of that. Maybe Ahmadinejahd should control his forces.

But he has literally no control. This is something the citizens want, they feel disenfranchised and this is what they are doing with or without Mousavi's blessing.

I disagree man, I think he still has a strong impact on the citizens. This is of course, just a hunch, but he continues to send messages to the public and they have not varied from what he is asking of them in the least.

I know the citizens aren't doing anything really. But by going into their homes and stopping the protests, they would stop the violence. Don't get me wrong I am not in favor of the corrupt government in Iran, although I do have respect Ahmadinejad's international policy, I have no knowledge of his domestic policies.

But a government that has killed 150 of it's own people in a week will not hesitate to kill more, is my point.

I'm curious. what exactly do you respect about his international policy? considering that he has absolutely NO POWER with respect to policy-making.

do you respect his empty rhetoric denouncing the Holocaust?
do you respect his false claim of having a PhD.?
do you respect his claiming that Iran is the most stable country in the world?
do you respect his defiance of the United Nations?
do you respect him strengthening ties with notorious U.S. enemies like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro?

just curious

-His denouncing the Holocaust is way too often blown out of proportion. His statement concerning the Holocaust was merely a criticism of the fact that himself and others are not allowed to research first hand sources of the historical event so widely portrayed in films, tv, and novels.
-I don't know anything about his PhD being real or not, but regardless, I don't see how it has anything to do with his international policy.

What I do like about him is his resilience to simply being pushed around my stronger forces. He resisted Bush because he acted as any of us would. Would you take orders from a President with such terrible approval from the entire world? Being an educated man I'm sure, anyone with enough guts would refuse to listen to Bushs' hipocracy concerning nuclear arms. You can have nuclear weapons but I cannot? Iran is no Al-Qaeda subsidiary faction. It is a highly literate intelligent state. Serious development of a nuclear disarmament plan will take place when America takes the initiative to lead by example. Unwillingness to do this is simply hipocracy.

We have seen Ahmadinjedad negatively respond to Bush's attempts to bully, and just recently, positively respond to such a seemingly insignificant act of diplomacy by Obama in the form of a recorded speech. This is a display of the dynamics necessary for a development of relations between the 2 countries. Ahmadinjedad is not just some stuck up guy who hates America and wants to rebel; he is willing to cooperate if treated as an equal.

In fact, he is probably the most misquoted leader in the world. People continue to throw around exaggerated translations concerning Israel and the Holocaust to this day. The man has a strong backbone, and was not willing to break it for the US, or anyone. If addressed appropriately and with equal respect, he has shown much potential for cooperation. That's what I respect.



dude, there is nothing to be respected about this man.

and you need to understand he has NO POWER in policy making. He is only essentially the face of the parliament or government of Iran. He takes orders andserves as a distraction.

He makes ludicrous statements to distract his people from real issues that affect the average Iranian. Like his continous statements about Israel, Palestine,the Holocaust, etc.

He stirs controversy to deflect attention from the domestic atrocities that take place on a daily basis in Iran, as well as economic problems that affectpeople.

What kills me is how these idiots question the Holocaust which just happened 60 years ago. Where we have videos and first-hand accounts from survivors andcountless witnesses. They questions a catastrophic event that recently happened.

But, at the same time, they believe every exact and intricate detail of every story in the Koran which happened THOUSANDS of years ago. They don't questionthose ancient mythical events, but they question the factual events of a 60 years ago.

And these idiots are in power. Amazing.

 

[Lizakers]

Another thing I want to mention in light of the current situation in Iran, is the propaganda that is going on.

The government goes to rural areas and picks up bus loads of peasants and farmers and takes them to Tehran to attend Ahmadinejad rallies.

And they show these rallies on state-sponsored TV.

the only followers of this regime are the uneducated working-class people who are not savvy enough and intelligent enough to recognize political games beingplayed by the government.

They don't understand when they are exploited and lied to.

also, the government made a bogus claim that a protester bombed a shrine of Khomeini. They did this to attempt to appeal to the religious conservatives andturn them against the protesters.

There are no limits to the deception of the Islamic Republic.

 

[kash55]

-