Iran is far from united behind Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Iran is far from united behind Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

www.latimes.com

Opposition figures, moderate politicians and even hard-liners openly criticize the divisive Iranian president.

Reporting from Beirut and Tehran —
In New York, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can boast that he's the talk of the town, appearing on television shows with the likes of Christiane Amanpour and Larry King, hobnobbing with fellow heads of state and addressing the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday.

In Tehran these days, the outspoken hard-line politician is under withering attack from all political directions. His detractors in recent weeks have included

(visit the link for the full news article)

Well here is a rather interesting perspective. I thought for sure somebody would have posted it here at ATS. It seems Iran is not as United behind Ahmadinejad as he would like people to believe.

For a Country [The US] that is supposedly just around the corner from attacking Iran it sure does seem odd the it allows him to go on American TV and speak his mind. Not bad for a Police state/War mongering Empire.

I know this article wont fly well with some ATS members.

I find this bit here rather enlightening.

Strife among reformists, conservatives, hard-liners and extreme hard-liners has long shaped Iran's political system. But in recent months, the arguments and infighting have taken on a far sharper tone, with attacks growing more virulent and vocal. At the heart of the matter, analysts say, is Ahmadinejad, a divisive figure whose heavily disputed reelection last year triggered Iran's worst political crisis in decades.

www.latimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by SLAYER69


And Ahmadinejad's argument is, that they have the right to express themselves. They can say what ever they want.

I kinda find Ahmadinejad more of a reformists then the previous so called reformist which the West boasts so much about.

If you think about it, it was under Ahmadinjejad's presidency that the judiciary created a legislation to scrap the punishment of stoning to death. It was him who sent the letter to Obama, to start the dialog. It was him who criticized the religious police, who gives fines for religious immorality :pus: what ever that means.

Then again he might be just like any other politician

At the moment I believe he is shaping the future of Iran, for the better.

Oh, I've no doubt A. is like any other politician and let's not forget that he has the added trouble of having to answer to the clerics (who some would argue, are in fact in control of the Iranian Govt. and not him) and that all of the people are not united behind him is no surprise.

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

And Ahmadinejad's argument is, that they have the right to express themselves. They can say what ever they want.

I wonder if Iran would let Obama run around to their non state ran media as freely as he is able to do so here in the States.

Oh wait, are there any non state ran media in Iran?

reply to post by LadySkadi


That's a very interesting point.
I wonder how the world would perceive the US if it showed Obama in a similar position with a Priest, Preacher or Rabbi?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1c48208808e6.jpg[/atsimg]

I dont think I get the point of the OP. Maybe I am being misled by the title of the thread? Is the point that the people of Iran aren't all in support of Amadinejad? If so, that's no biggie and I don't think it's new info either. It's common in politics, specially if the country is going through a tough time. Take a look at US. Obama is not necessarily Mr Popularity.

Did I miss something?

I think that many is the USA are being led to believe that Iran is full of fundamentalist freaks that fully support a dictatorial president. While I don't support either of those claims I believe that this article does something to suggest that it isn't so cut and dry.

reply to post by SLAYER69

Interesting photograph.
Now, in the U.S., the president should sit lower than the people, since the president is a civil servant.
In the U.S., the flag is what we honor.
So, the president of the U.S. stands beneath the flag.

It appears that the Ayatollah is what the people of Iran honor, a sort of representative of God.
Ahmadinejad is a civil servant, and sits beneath what the people honor.

Makes sense.



.

reply to post by Stewie


Nah.

I think it's just who really has the power.

Good attempt at a spin though.

So, it is not the U.S. that has a problem with Iran and Ahmadinejad, it is the Zionist Regime.

I wonder what would happen if he took the same kind of trip to Israel?

*Edit to reply to the OP*

How many countries ARE united behind their leaders?
We definitely aren't.

reply to post by Stewie


are you for real?

I will say something

When there were protests in Iran the media, especially MSNBC, highlighted the Iranian protests like there is no tomorrow on front pages as well as other left-wing news outlets.

When there were protests in the U.S. and vehicles with sound weapons playing their tune with a large amount of riot police calling the protests an unlawful assembly there were no coverage in the media.

Under this administration the Dept. Of Homeland Security released a document calling vets potential terroists as well as people who cared about illegal immigration, the sovereignty of the U.S. and the economy, basically dissenters.

A few weeks later the U.S. came out with a bill almost overnight supporting Iranian dissenters.

There is definately something wrong with this I am sure you agree, something is wrong with this picture.
I'm not disagreeing with the article but anything on Chavez or the Iranian PM coming from certain news outlets is very hypocritical and often half-truths or opinion masquerading as news.

Originally posted by tooo many pills
How many countries ARE united behind their leaders?
We definitely aren't.

so......

It's not ok to talk about Iran's internal turmoil? Is that taboo or something?
We see many references to ours in the global media.
Whats the difference?

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Star for you but...

Our media does show our internal protests and politically charged situations.



On top of all that we have Youtube and ATS

reply to post by Stewie


He is freaken old, that is why he sits on a chair, so he can stand easily again.

Have you guys ever been to a Mosque before, ever seen a prayer. Don't worry Slayer, I'm sure they won't chop of your head, just go for a visit. You will see old people praying on a chair, to make it easier for them.

I'm not saying Khmeini is not a respected man amongst the Shiite population, just saying he's darn old..

reply to post by SLAYER69

I wonder if Iran would let Obama run around to their non state ran media as freely as he is able to do so here in the States.

Oh wait, are there any non state ran media in Iran?

In an interview in another country, it really doesn't matter whether the media is state run, or not lol.. If Osama, ops I mean Obama goes to Iran for an interview, critical questions would be asked whether state owned or not. Just like Iran's president, who was questioned critically, or do you think that was soft talk

Here is a challenge for you, ask Obama, for an interview with you. Or is that even possible, hmmmm.. When you do that, when you have the ability to do that, that is when I will proudly say that it actually does matter whether the media is state owned or not lol..

reply to post by oozyism


Nice try but....


Would he be allowed to criticize the Iranian government? Would he be allowed to criticize their policies?
Iminpajamas is free to do so here.

Would they air it?

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by LadySkadi

 

That's a very interesting point.
I wonder how the world would perceive the US if it showed Obama in a similar position with a Priest, Preacher or Rabbi?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1c48208808e6.jpg[/atsimg]

edit on 22-9-2010 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

No instead you have your leaders kissing toxic bankers and sucking up to Mega polluting big business.

So what you are suggesting by your post is that your "empire" should go into Iran, just like Iraq and Afghanistan and give them a taste of good ol' American democracy where every single human consumes 5 times more than the average human should.

Iran is a very old country, much more civilized than many other middle eastern countries, and until you have actually been and talked to these people you don't know sqat.

I have seen all I need to see to know most of the people of Iran would love nothing more than not have the government they have,and most would like to be more open to the USA, We really missed the boat last summer when the people of Iran were in the streets we should have invaded, and 90% of the citizens of Iran would have joined us! And Iran would not be an issue today.