An Iranian's view on the whole situation

reply to post by Sharpenmycleats

War seems pretty inevitable when looking at things this way

Only people who think they can win

And the people who think they are living in a jungle comment like this.

War is evadable because we choose to fight or not to fight.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Kokatsi

 

Why do so many people here insist that someone is a paid shill every time there is a difference of opinion?

It is merely a possibility. Another possibility is a cognitive defect.
This is clearly not a matter of a "different opinion." The OP has professed his stance towards the government of Iran - but some posters of a "diffferent opinion" choose to ignore it as a presupposition, without any logical argument or proof and without respecting another person's professed identity and poitical stance.

For example, if someone clearly identifies himself as a Jew, and he even gives clear evidence of that affiliation, do you have the right to call him a Moslem?

And no, I do not call people shills all that easily. There are shades and differences of opinion, taste or evaluation. E.g. on occasion I differed from Mr. Zodieux but I welcomed his contribution to the other recent thread about Iran (Warmongers) and I was convinced it was important.

However, to completely ignore all that the other person says about themselves, just to repeat a couple of lines of ideology mechanically - which sounds supiciously the same as Fox News - simply betrays lack of using the intelligence circuits of the brain - see proof in my quoted source below.

And after a number of repetitions - where all logical arguments and facts fail, and blind belief triumphs, one simply gets tired of arguing - perhaps it is only a game they are playing.

Let me quote a recent psychological study on the physical evidence of partisan politics:

A recent imaging study by psychologist Drew Westen and his colleagues at Emory University provides firm support for the existence of emotional reasoning. Just prior to the 2004 Bush-Kerry presidential elections, two groups of subjects were recruited - fifteen ardent Democrats and fifteen ardent Republicans. Each was presented with conflicting and seemingly damaging statements about their candidate, as well as about more neutral targets such as actor Tom Hanks (who, it appears, is a likable guy for people of all political persuasions). Unsurprisingly, when the participants were asked to draw a logical conclusion about a candidate from the other - 'wrong' - political party, the participants found a way to arrive at a conclusion that made the candidate look bad, even though logic should have mitigated the particular circumstances and allowed them to reach a different conclusion. Here's where it gets interesting. When this 'emote control' began to occur, parts of the brain normally involved in reasoning were not activated. Instead, a constellation of activations occurred in the same areas of the brain where punishment, pain, and negative emotions are experienced (that is, in the left insula, lateral frontal cortex, and ventromedial prefrontal cortex). Once a way was found to ignore information that could not be rationally discounted, the neural punishment areas turned off, and the participant received a blast of activation in the circuits involving rewards - akin to the high an addict receives when getting his fix. In essence, the participants were not about to let facts get in the way of their hot-button decision making and quick buzz of reward. 'None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged,' says Westen. 'Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones'... Ultimately, Westen and his colleagues believe that 'emotionally biased reasoning leads to the "stamping in" or reinforcement of a defensive belief, associating the participant's "revisionist" account of the data with positive emotion or relief and elimination of distress. The result is that partisan beliefs are calcified, and the person can learn very little from new data,' Westen says. Westen's remarkable study showed that neural information processing related to what he terms 'motivated reasoning' ... appears to be qualitatively different from reasoning when a person has no strong emotional stake in the conclusions to be reached.

(Quoted in a recent article by Laura Knight-Jadczyk)
[url=http://www.sott.net/articles/show/240308-Dark-Ages-and-Inquisitions-Ancient-and-Modern-Or-Why-Things-are-Such-a-Mess-On-Our-Planet-and-Humanity-i s-on-the-Verge-of-Extinction]

reply to post by seenavv

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by seenavv
it amazes me how you can be on this website with such a record and continue to spew propaganda from the likes of Clinton, CIA, and the US Department

It amazes me how many iranian apologists and iranian government agents have appeared on this site in the past few months. It's like a flock of pigeons or a gaggle of geese or an army of ants or an infestation of termites ...

It amazes me how you can try to spin the government of Iran as being something benevolent, when it's not.

It amazes me how I can post information from many different sources and yet the apologists for Iran refuse to acknowledge the truth of them. Reports from El-Arabya or Amnesty International are suddenly 'cia'. :shk:

YOU SAID THIS -

Originally posted by seenavv
You do realize any attempt to interfere with the decisions and actions made within a foreign country is an instigation to war. Therefore any form of interference labels the instigators as the aggressors in the conflict which could potentially lead to an all out war.

That's EXACTLY what Iran does all around the world.
Your statement turned around and bit you in the backend ...

This is not new and there are noises like this in every single thread.

Just ignore the noises even with much stars and flags.

Just believe in your self and tell us your idea.

Originally posted by hmdphantom
reply to post by Deetermined

 

Once Iranians develop the same mind set as the current regime the rest of the country will change for the better?

No , it was as simple as it seems.
There is no agenda behind it.

People in Iran think that they can change a regime when corruption is rooted in their hearts and minds.

That won't happen. Any regime recommends some people to run it. And as people are corrupted , that regime will be corrupted.

Am I clear now ?

Sorry, it's not clear to me yet, but I'm working towards it.

Does that mean that the current regime is corrupted?

To be specific, is Ahmadinejad corrupting the regime by going against Khamenei's wishes and using SOME western influence to win the people over? Therefore, Ahmadinejad is being corrupted by the Iranian people by influencing him to do so?

Or are you saying that the Iranian population in general has corrupt hearts by wanting a complete regime change?

Originally posted by Sharpenmycleats
reply to post by hmdphantom

 

I find it pretty hypocritical when people throw out the statement that the US is only there for oil and big corporations.

Well, so what. Every country with a military does the same thing. China is trying to control the vast resources of the South China Sea. Russia has openly stood behind Syria and Iran to protect their interest and has also recently has made claim to the North Pole. Iran wants to rule the gulf resources and is building their military to try and accomplish this.

The fact is, resources are needed for sustainability. Now your average citizen is only concerned with today, tomorrow, next week, governments are thinking next year, next decade. Will we have fuel to compete in industry, will we have enough food to feed our people, will we have enough raw resources to grow our industry to keep our rising populace employed, will we have enough fresh water? These are questions every nation is asking themselves. When was the last time you sat at the kitchen table and discussed these topics with your children?

War seems pretty inevitable when looking at things this way. That or one world government with population control....God help us!

I was right there with you until just before the end. Because war isn't the only way to preserve or obtain enough resources for sustainability, and there are plenty of resources to go around. When people try to control or limit these resources as a means of obtaining money or power, that's when we get into trouble.

reply to post by Deetermined


I never spoke of regime change. Do you want to get your sentences out of my mouth ?

I said ,

1.some Iranian people are corrupted.

2.the body of the government is consisted of ordinary people serving in the system

1+2 = The body of that government is consisted of those people who are corrupted.

And even a regime changes , the body will stay the same.(corrupted)

Then regime change is waste of time and money.

reply to post by hmdphantom


Read the book Lord of the Flies, it might enlighten you to survival changing even the most innocent minds.

I love how liberal people think wars and fighting can just end, because John Lennon said. The complexities are far greater than simple peaceful thinking. Why do you think it has been happening since we showed up on this planet.

Might also study animals, you may think you are smarter and more civilized but we are not.

Oh yeah, the Iranian guy that posted this thread is....what was his message anyways? In other words posting pictures of desecrating enemies is a different thread.

Originally posted by Sharpenmycleats
reply to post by hmdphantom

 

Read the book Lord of the Flies, it might enlighten you to survival changing even the most innocent minds.

I love how liberal people think wars and fighting can just end, because John Lennon said. The complexities are far greater than simple peaceful thinking. Why do you think it has been happening since we showed up on this planet.

Might also study animals, you may think you are smarter and more civilized but we are not.

Oh yeah, the Iranian guy that posted this thread is....what was his message anyways? In other words posting pictures of desecrating enemies is a different thread.

I love how people say, "I love how people ..." and then carry on with gross generalizations that really have little merit.

Conflict is a part of life, that doesn't mean war has to be.

Originally posted by Rocky Black
reply to post by n00bUK

 

There we go screaming about stealing resources.

Like IRaq and KOSOVO and the like.

Doubt it pal.

We steal nothing.

We liberate.

Make free.

Someday you may be free from oppression..

If you lucky.

Yes, also China got the oil contracts from Iraq. But who wants to know those details?

reply to post by hmdphantom

Thank you for your comments. I love it when people who actually KNOW about the country take the time to tell what they know, and set the record straight. Too many people buy into this "Iran is our sworn enemy" crap. It is all propaganda. Most Iranians don't want to kill Americans, and to me they are extremely restrained.

It is the extremists, who our government uses to fill people's heads with propaganda, so the people will not be in an uproar when they carry out their plan of attacking Iran. Do not be fooled, Iran would leave America alone if America would leave Iran alone. It is the same with most ME countries.

Is anyone actually stupid enough to think that there are populations of people out there who hate Americans because they are "free"? LOL. Can you say brainwashed? If any of you want to deny ignorance, then wake up and stop believing everything your favorite spin doctor, or pundit, claims as fact. There are NUMEROUS examples where it has been proven that the media BLATANTLY LIED about something, so do not make the mistake of thinking they are "honest". They are definitely NOT. That cute girl who is telling you all this via MSM acts like a buffer, and weak people eat it up.

They are simply reading what comes down from the top, and EVERYTHING that makes the MSM is censored by the top. So anyway, the MSM says that Iran is creating fuel rods so they can eventually build a nuclear bomb. It is laughable. Why is Iran not allowed to have nuclear energy like any other nation who has it?

This is happening because Iran won't play ball, and the West doesn't like leaders they cannot control. Does Qaddafi come to anyone's mind? It has virtually been exposed how those riots were carried out, but there are still those parroting that it was the Libyan people. Give me a break. Naivety is poison in my opinion, and too many people are skeptical when they should believe, and believe what they should reject. The government are experts at manipulating people, so do not underestimate them.

reply to post by Exsisto


War is the result of conflict.

You may want to look up words like rhetorical to help you understand lead in's like, "I love it when" prior to making a derogatory statement about something.

I guess moderators feel it is unacceptable to compliment someone's post. A post like that is sensored and removed because it I considered, "One Lined Off Topic Backscratching."

But I guess questioning someone's word semantics and offering nothing to the thread is on topic.

Originally posted by hmdphantom
reply to post by Deetermined

 

I never spoke of regime change. Do you want to get your sentences out of my mouth ?

I said ,

1.some Iranian people are corrupted.

2.the body of the government is consisted of ordinary people serving in the system

1+2 = The body of that government is consisted of those people who are corrupted.

And even a regime changes , the body will stay the same.(corrupted)

Then regime change is waste of time and money.

edit on 18/1/12 by hmdphantom because: (no reason given)

Now we're making some progress, but hang in there with me a little longer.

So, the government's corrupt, will always be corrupt, and only the citizens of Iran can make a difference for themselves, without the help of their government.

reply to post by JiggyPotamus



You make good points about the MSM. And no, it's about Israel for the most partl. But tell me again why women are forced to cover their face?
POTUS is supporting the Libyan rebels, but why? I mean wasn't Qaddafi doing all sorts of great things for the people, building infrastructure and so on? I mean, POTUS is socialist so why didn't he support a socialist ummm leader? And you know very well POTUS did this without Congressional approval.

reply to post by Sharpenmycleats


Is war any easier a way to resolve conflict than via a peaceful resolution? To borrow from your rhetorical repertoire, I love how some people bang the drum for war like it's the simplest way around a problem, like wiping out an enemy won't cost or gain more than peaceful negotiation or diplomacy.

It's utter nonsense. Yes, conflict is a part of life. Yes, war is a result of conflict. However it's not the result or even the best way to find resolution. It's the most costly way, by every definition imaginable, and yet some people think it's something we are given to like animals.

We are animals. Animals gifted with beautiful, huge brains that allow us to engage in logical thinking, and rationale. And rather than engaging in wars that cost precious resources like lives, one could think we should be able to reach a point where we recognize there's enough here to share, and fighting for resources - which is what we're talking about here with Iran - is a pointless exercise that only spends the very resources we're fighting for.

It's total lunacy.

reply to post by Exsisto


Might want to show some resources when making statements like, "There are plenty of resources to go around."

925 million people are hungry.
Over 1 billion lack access to potable water.
Over 1 billion lack adequate housing while 100 million have no home at all.
Gas and oil reserves will be depleted within 70 years

These facts should concern any country that does not have the ability to fight and defend their resources and their people. Something I think Iran is realizing. However, they probably should realize the US presence is not going away until they have nothing left to offer. If that means going to war, unfortunately the US will accommodate them.

wiki.answers.com...
www.worldhunger.org...
www.nature.com...
www.energybulletin.net...

reply to post by Exsisto


I also would like to add, I have stated repeatedly on ATS that I object to the US government constantly engaging in military conflict. I have Iranian friends and they are great people. It would crush my spirit to see them suffer or die.

Citizens don't start wars, Governments do. I vote to change our government!

reply to post by Exsisto


Then surely you will disavow the actions of Hezbollah and Hamas in the interest of peace in the region? I have suggested that everyone deserves a homeland and for that I get called an idiot and more. How can there ever be peace or even a dialogue in this atmosphere?

Originally posted by Sharpenmycleats

I also would like to add, I have stated repeatedly on ATS that I object to the US government constantly engaging in military conflict.

I sense irony in that quote.
Something just doesn't sit right.