Great Iran Quitz - "Surprising Facts"

This quitz is based and edited from Alternet.org article, link below... (See also full answers with more links to sources) Deny your ignorance!

"Super Surprising Facts About "Our Enemy"

26 basic questions about Iran with answers that might surprise you. The following quiz is an attempt to introduce more balance into the mainstream discussion of Iran.

Great Iran Quitz! - Questions bold, answers italic.

1. Is Iran an Arab country?
Based on language, ancestry and religion, Iran is not an Arab country.

2. Has Iran launched an aggressive war of conquest against another country since 1900?
No.

3. How many known cases of an Iranian suicide-bomber have there been from 1989 to 2007?
Zero. There is not a single known instance of an Iranian suicide-bomber since the end of the Iran-Iraq War in 1988.

4. What was Iran 's defense spending in 2008?
$9.6 billion.

5. What was the U.S. 's defense spending in 2008?
$692 billion.

6. What is the Jewish population of Iran?
25,000. It is one of the many paradoxes of the Islamic Republic of Iran that this anti-Israeli country supports by far the largest Jewish population of any Muslim country.

7. Which Iranian leader said the following? “This [ Israel 's] Occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.”
Ruhollah Khomeini. Ahmadinejad quoted this statement in 2005 yet wire service translators rendered Khomeini's statement into English as “Israel must be wiped off the face of the map.

8. True of False: Iranian television presented a serial sympathetic to Jews during the Holocaust that coincided with President Ahmadinejad's first term.
True. Iranian television ran a widely watched serial on the Holocaust, Zero Degree Turn.

9. What percentage of students entering university in Iran is female?
Over 60%.

10. What percentage of the Iranian population attends Friday prayers?
1.4%.

11. True or False: Iran has formally consented to the Arab League's 2002 peace initiative with Israel.
True. In March 2002, the Arab League summit in Beirut unanimously put forth a peace initiative that commits it not just to recognize Israel but also to establish normal relations once Israel implements the international consensus for a comprehensive peace—which includes Israel withdrawing from the occupied territories and a just settlement of the Palestinian refugee crisis.

12. Which two countries were responsible for orchestrating the 1953 overthrow of Iran's populist government of democratically elected prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh, primarily because he introduced legislation that led to the nationalization of Iranian oil?
The U.S. and Britain.

13. Who made the following address on March 17, 2000? “In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh. The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.”
Madeleine Albright: U.S. Secretary of State , 1997 -2001.

14. Which countries trained the Shah's brutal internal security service, SAVAK?
According to William Blum, a highly respected author and journalist, "The notorious Iranian security service, SAVAK, which employed torture routinely, was created under the guidance of the CIA and Israel in the 1950s.

15. Does Iran have nuclear weapons?
No.

16. Is Iran a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)?
Yes.

17. Is Israel a signatory of the NPT?
No.

18. Does the NPT permit a signatory to pursue a nuclear program?
Yes. The NPT specifies that “Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination.” Therefore, as long as Iran meets its responsibilities under the NPT and continues to allow inspections by the IAEA, it is acting within its rights. The sorts of research facilities maintained by Iran are common in industrialized countries. The real issue is trust and transparency rather than purely one of technology. Yet, Iran has not always been forthcoming in fulfilling its obligations under the NPT.

19. Who wrote the following in 2004? "Wherever U.S forces go, nuclear weapons go with them or can be made to follow in short order. The world has witnessed how the United States attacked Iraq for, as it turned out, no reason at all. Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy. Though Iran is ruled by Islamic fundamentalists, most commentators who are familiar with the country do not regard its government as irrational. ... [I]t was Saddam Hussein who attacked Iran, not the other way around; since then Iran has been no more aggressive than most countries are. For all their talk of opposition to Israel , Iran 's rulers are very unlikely to mount a nuclear attack on a country that is widely believed to have what it takes to wipe them off the map. Chemical or other attacks are also unlikely, given the meager results that may be expected and the retaliation that would almost certainly follow.”
Martin van Creveld: Distinguished professor of military history and strategy at Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

20. What percentage of Iranians in 2008 said they had an unfavorable view of the American people?
20%.

21. What percentage of Iranians in 2008 expressed negative sentiments toward the Bush administration?
75%.

22. What were the main elements of Iran's 2003 Proposal to the U.S., communicated during the build-up to the Iraq invasion, and how did the U.S. respond to Iran's Proposal?
According to the Washington Post, “Just after the lightning takeover of Baghdad by U.S. forces … an unusual two-page document spewed out of a fax machine at the Near East bureau of the State Department. It was a proposal from Iran for a broad dialogue with the United States , and the fax suggested everything was on the table -- including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups. But top Bush administration officials, convinced the Iranian government was on the verge of collapse, belittled the initiative. Instead, they formally complained to the Swiss ambassador who had sent the fax with a cover letter certifying it as a genuine proposal supported by key power centers in Iran

23. True or False: Iran and the U.S. both considered the Taleban to be an enemy after the 9/11 attacks.
True.

24. Did the U.S. work with the Tehran-based Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq both before and after the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq?
Yes.

25. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, who said the following? "The Iranians had real contacts with important players in Afghanistan and were prepared to use their influence in constructive ways in coordination with the United States."
Flynt Leverett: Senior director for Middle East affairs in the U.S. National Security Council from March 2002 to March 2003.

26. Who wrote the following in 2004? “It is in the interests of the United States to engage selectively with Iran to promote regional stability, dissuade Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons, preserve reliable energy supplies, reduce the threat of terror, and address the ‘democracy deficit' that pervades the Middle East …”
A task force sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations and chaired by two prominent members of the American foreign policy establishment, former CIA director Robert Gates and former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, recommended “a revised strategic approach to Iran.” Their report included the above statement.


Questions and answers by: Jeffrey Rudolph, a college professor in Montreal
Link to source and full answers: www.alternet.org...

April 29, 2010 - What can possibly justify the relentless U.S. diplomatic and mainstream media assault on Iran?

[edit on 30-4-2010 by JanusFIN]

A blog is the source (referenced) for these facts?

Where is the original source material, references and studies?

Thanks...



[edit on 30-4-2010 by LadySkadi]

reply to post by LadySkadi

You find full answers and links to sources from article, I just made it easier to read for you

www.alternet.org...

reply to post by JanusFIN


Aha - my bad - I didn't note them at first glance - pretty obvious when I went back.

reply to post by JanusFIN


While all or most of those facts may be true, unfortunately, it has already been decided to bomb the hell out of Iran...

Here we go again.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/30135f286e8f.jpg[/atsimg]

Conclusion from article,

War propaganda, Obama style!

This new US communication strategy regarding the Iranian nuclear program shows that the new administration has learned that using the same pre-war war propaganda in order to gain support of the public opinion does not work twice, when the first time it became so clear that the public was in fact fooled into a war.

One could therefore say that the current spin doctors of the Obama administration are smarter in their strategic approach, taken that there is still an option of a military intervention in Iran present on the table. It is only a matter of time and interests to find a window of opportunity, in order to wage another war of choice covered with the political narrative that makes the public believe it is in fact a war of necessity instead.

When considering the current status quo and the Obama strategy towards Iran and the communication strategy focused on effecting the public opinion one can only conclude that the Obama administration have made good use of lessons learned from the Iraq war propaganda. The spin doctors of this administration have accepted the learning capability of the public opinion and have become more cautious in their approach of their strategy towards Iran.

When considering the war propaganda on Iran set out by the late Bush administration in the final stage of his presidency one sees that the old style of Republican war propaganda was being used. When president Obama came to power the war propaganda shifted and perhaps set back two or three steps in order to use a different strategy of approach of the public opinion. Therefore one could say that when observing the current phase of president Obama’s war propaganda on Iran, it could take some time before he moves the public into the second phase in which they are more receptive to the option of a military intervention.

Based on this perception, one has to conclude that a possible military intervention still remains an option. It has perhaps only moved more further into to future timeline, accordingly with the new Obama strategy.

The challenge that the Obama administration then faces is creating a second and third phase in their approach that could take away any kind of comparison with the war on Iraq. It would by then even be necessary to focus on other aspects of the Iranian government, other than their nuclear program, to create a more legitimate political narrative in support of a military intervention.

Perhaps the Obama administration will use a different principle of Anne Morelli, namely the focus on the humanitarian need to a military intervention. In this case the Obama administration could shift the focus on Iran’s interior affairs that could be considered a ‘humanitarian issue’, like the deterioration of the human rights situation, the increasing number of political refugees, the many cases of torture in prisons, lawlessness and discriminatory laws against women and minorities.

These humanitarian issues could even be strengthened by the use of social groups in society who too could influence the public opinion into accepting that only a regime change would end the breaches of international human rights that the Iranian regime is guilty of.

The fact remains that a war of choice has certain goals that in the first place have little to do with a direct military threat, but with safeguarding political and economic interests. By using a political narrative that is credible enough for the public opinion to support a military intervention, it no longer is important whether the political narrative is true, urgent or just timely and convenient.

Based on the lessons learned through the last Bush administration with regard to the use of public opinion in creating support for a war of choice the Obama administration stands strong in reshaping that same war propaganda into something more credible and acceptable for the current public opinion. So as it seems, if the Obama administration would want to wage war with Iran, he has the right tools and a credible alternative political narrative that could open the way for a smart and effective defense against Iran.

www.iranian.com...

And it's statements like this that really help Iranians further their
"cause"

www.ynetnews.com...



[edit on 1-5-2010 by manta78]

reply to post by manta78


Since when did it become wrong for countries to oppose and comment on a potential preemptive strike on their allies?

Originally posted by manta78
And it's statements like this that really help Iranians further their
"cause"

www.ynetnews.com...

[edit on 1-5-2010 by manta78]

And if you bother to look up the credentials of the site you find it is an Israeli site.

Registrant:
Pazi
Yigal alon st. 127
Tel Aviv,
IL, 67443

Registrar: DomainTheNet.com

Domain Name: ynetnews.com
Created on ............. 2001-08-27 00:00:00
Expires on ............. 2011-08-27 00:00:00
Record last updated on . 2009-11-22 22:14:00
Status .................LOCK

Administrative Contact:
Pazi
Pazi Levinson
Yigal alon st. 127
Tel Aviv,
IL, 67443

Can what they report be trusted?? It is not in their interest to report the truth and Iranian words have apparently often been misquoted.

Originally posted by manta78
And it's statements like this that really help Iranians further their
"cause"

www.ynetnews.com...

[edit on 1-5-2010 by manta78]

And you're just stupid enough to take that literally, aren't you digger ? *pats your head*

Given the 4x2's have been calling for far worse things to happen to Iran and its people, the sentiment expressed by the Iranians, sentiment being the important thing here as opposed to the literal translation of what was said, is more than justified...

Iran has had to sit by whilst the US and Israel have tried to vandalise its economy thru UN sanctions...

Now, be good and go play outside while the grown-ups discuss important stuff, won't you ?

There's a good boy/girl

[edit on 1/5/2010 by Retrovertigo]

C'mon now. What do facts have to do with anything?? THIS IS WAR WE ARE IN!!!

Iran started the war when they flew planes into the WTC!! And they have WMDs!

We need to kill them all, so they can have freedoms for their women.

Get with it!

reply to post by FalselyFlagged


Getting woman on board when it comes to wars is actually a big part of the propaganda machine. Early in Afghanistan the polls showed a huge difference between male supporters of the war and female supporters...solution? The media start pumping out many news stories and documentaries about woman in Afghanistan, tugging on their heart strings and playing them like puppets. Not surprisingly the % of woman who support the war increased across the board.

reply to post by FalselyFlagged

Sure - But you forgot that their president (witch is second line leadership in their government after religious leaders) is actually newborn HITLER !!!

2nd line dictatorship.

And not a word from Israels nukes... How stupid they think we are?

Clinton says Iran poses 'global nuclear risk'

Iran's nuclear ambitions are putting the world at risk, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says. She told delegates at a nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty conference at the UN that Iran should be held to account. Earlier, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran accused states with nuclear weapons of threatening those who want to develop peaceful nuclear technology.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Propaganda steams in high rounds these days...