Iran stockpiling food? Why?

reply to post by smith88


Something will almost definitely happen soon. More than likely it will be an Israeli airstrike of Iran's nuclear ficilities and infrastructure. I don't really see an invasion scenario happening. Israel didn't invade Iraq or Syria after striking their nuclear sites. Iran will almost definitely retaliate with missile launches and offensives from its proxies in West bank, gaza, lebanon and if the assad regime holds on, syria. Then it will get interesting

reply to post by glasshouse


Plus if the US gets involved to help Israel out, after they are bombarded by Iran, I believe that Russia and China will become involved as well. Then it will drag in all the nuclear powers. I wonder when they are going to start teaching my kids the "duck and cover" technique.

reply to post by superman2012


You're definitely right. What I'm kind of anticipating, at the moment at least, is the possibility of an eventual Sunni vs Shiite war. Technically, it seems like its been going on for a while. I guess America backs the Sunni and Russia and China back the Shiite. The whole Islamic Spring and now the fighting in Syria have started to give the battle lines more definition. I'm guessing all the middle-easterners are waiting for the demise of Israel and then they will turn their focus to the Real War.
I think this is the main reason we continue to dedicate funds indirectly, if not directly, to Sunni extremist(including Al Queda) in some of these latest uprisings( Libya and Syria specifically).
I guess the enemy of our more threatening enemy is our friend?
I haven't done a lot of research on the idea but I think it could possibly help better explain motivations and actions of several key players if true.


Time for the daily palette cleanser:
youtu.be...

reply to post by glasshouse


I find it hilarious that the US is fighting al queda in one country, while supporting them in another country. I guess they turn into "good guys" at the border? Didn't Al Queda bring down the twin towers and kill thousands of people? I wonder what the US is afraid of that is making them support their enemies.

reply to post by superman2012

Yeah , it's definitely F'd up. My only guess would be our relationship with the Saudis. After the "uprisings" the Saudis get more Sunni-centric governments in the region and America gets "quasi-allies" if TSHTF with Iran in the short term.
Although they are allied with a nuclear Pakistan, I think Saudi arabia feels just as threatened by the idea of a nuclear armed Iran.
It's possible Israel starts with the precision strikes and then leaves the rest to Saudi Arabia, Turkey and others.
Just a thought

reply to post by glasshouse


Well, let's hope we're both wrong and people realize that there is no reason for war.

reply to post by superman2012


Agreed.
Have a good one!

Originally posted by glasshouse
reply to post by maes9

 

Iran is indeed a theocracy but that does not mean it can't be a dictatorship at the same time.
The "elected leaders" of Iran are controlled by the religious clerics.
I would assert, as well, that Iran is well on its way to becoming a military dictatorship.

excuse me but I can change your sentences these way::
USA is indeed a democracy but that does not mean it can't be a dictatorship at the same time.
The "elected leaders" of USA are controlled by the corporation rich and AIPAC.

and this is exactly why Iran has a wise, pious, aware leader to prevent what you are witnessing in the Capitalism, moreover shia doctrine is different, christianity has not this capacity. and even Sunnies may not be open to that.

does the anti_semitism that you are insisting on include orthodox Jews?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by glasshouse
I guess the enemy of our more threatening enemy is our friend?

This about sums up UK and US foreign policy. And with tacit agreements that that support will be given as long as those groups do not target the hand that helps to feed them, it possibly sheds a new light on 9/11 and 7/7, with both operations being allowed to go through, for the purpose of manufacturing the consent needed to send in troops to help enable further destabilisation in the middle-east in order to facilitate the aims of those that our foreign offices back.

I mean really, going back to 'anti-semitism', and the way in which that has traditionally and consistently been used by regimes to incite ethnic divides, it is not too difficult to realise how incredibly powerful an alliance between Israel and Iran could be and what a threat that would be to the western powers global position, particularly economically. Ensuring that such divisions are maintained is the only means by which the west is able to maintain it's position geopolitically, and peace for them, in the middle-east, provides a worst case scenario and therefore there is no incentive for them to be genuinely pro-active on that front. Given the increasing divided between Shiite and Sunni, much of it admittedly age old, but still, largely exacerbated by western influence, the strategic usefulness of Israel can be seen to have served it's purpose, and that renders it disposable, especially given that it's intelligence services have proved consistently unsuccessful at infiltrating Hezbollah.

Given the relationship between Pakistan, the Saudis and the West, and the vast sums of money that are passed between the three, and on to 'insurgent' groups, it would be in Iran's best interest to form a strategic alliance with Israel, and for the Palestinian issue to be resolved with expediency. To do this, all notions of expelling significant portions of the population has to be abandoned, it is a wholly unreasonable solution to the problem, and with open discussion there can be, surely, a more reasonable means of bringing together the divided nation, and ensuring economic redress and adequate living space for all. A two-state solution only continues to play into the hands of those who seek to divide and a state whereby respect is mutually offered and recieved can be the only long term solution. Though of course none of that will be easy, but it certainly will not be achieved while both sides of the fence continue to react to divisive propaganda and point the finger at each other, and waves guns in the air in rampant displays of paranoia.

It is in the best interest of the Pakistanis, Saudis and the West to continue promoting every little anti-Jewish and anti-Arab comment made by each side, blowing up what is essentially natural xenophobia out of all proportion. If Iran and Israel can find a basis of brotherhood, or at lest fealty, however temporary, then the whole western house of cards will collapse in on itself and their influence on the economy of the region will be diminished radically. By at least attempting to find a diplomatic solution to problem, they will undermine the power of those who seek to keep them divided. Hence the current urgency of those western backed factions, that is what most scares them, and that is what they are currently going all out to prevent.

reply to post by maes9


You're excused. America isn't a democracy, it's a constitutional republic.
It could indeed become a dictatorship. The chances are a little less likely than in Iran because we don't already have an unelected governing council. And no, not all representatives are controlled by the evil rich people you speak of. We have the choice to replace bad leaders every few years.

I, for one, am glad that we don't have unelected "wise, pious leaders" that dictate policy from the largest to the most mundane of issues(ie how you should wipe your ass in accordance with sharia)
In America we have freedoms that allow you to live your life in accordance with any religion or none at all.
No executions of apostates, homosexuals or women by self-righteous zealots.
I don't really have a problem with Islam but I don't think a population should be forced to follow any religious doctrine.
What exactly is happening to capitalism?

moreover shia doctrine is different, christianity has not this capacity. and even Sunnies may not be open to that.

Christianity doesn't have what capacity?
Sunnis may not be open to what?

The anti-semitism I insist on refers to any person that discriminates against another person because of their jewish faith. Include anyone you like.

reply to post by Biliverdin

I think the "enemy of my less threatening enemy is my friend" statement could apply to most nations, including Iran.

it is not too difficult to realise how incredibly powerful an alliance between Israel and Iran could be and what a threat that would be to the western powers global position, particularly economically.

The possibility of this happening is ZERO. Considering Iran's multiple calls for the destruction of the Zionist regime, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
How do you solve the Palestinian issue when Palestinians won't even acknowledge Israel's right to exist?
The Palestinians are being used by the nations of their brothers in order to maintain support against Israel.
I do believe this might all just a pre cursor to Shiite-Sunni War.

Originally posted by glasshouse
The possibility of this happening is ZERO. Considering Iran's multiple calls for the destruction of the Zionist regime, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

Oh ye of little faith. No, I shan't be holding my breath, but I do believe that it is possible, I have infinite faith in human intelligence and ingenuity. Zionism is merely another word for nationalism, it is not beyond the ability of reason that such a nationalistic model can be made to incorporate Palestine. And a nationalist country like Iran should be able to perceive that possibility. There are, I readily admit, enormous obstacles, but that simply adds to the challenge. Does anyone, does the majority, really want the alternative? Either they learn to compromise and find a solution or millions die. It may be, given all the goodwill in the world that a compromise cannot be reach and that war may be inevitable, but surely there is enough people in both countries that at least want to give it a go before they settle for the easy option of mutual armaggedon.

Originally posted by glasshouse
How do you solve the Palestinian issue when Palestinians won't even acknowledge Israel's right to exist?
The Palestinians are being used by the nations of their brothers in order to maintain support against Israel.
I do believe this might all just a pre cursor to Shiite-Sunni War.

At present the Palestinians have not been offered a reasonable alternative. They have been systematically corralled into smaller and smaller territories, and furthermore, been denied basic rights of access to natural resources. They have nothing to lose and no one is offering them any sort of solution that restores their dignity and freedom. I mean for pity's sake, they do not even have access to water supplies, everything that they need is given to them, no people should have to live like that, and of course they will use rhetoric to deny Israel's right to subjugate them. Any peace process has first to restore the dignity of the Palestinians and then it should seek to redress the balance.

reply to post by glasshouse

differences between Islamic government and theocracy in christianity::
as Iran has a special kind of islamic government that is based on shia doctrines but these are common in Islam not just related to shia.

1-no forced government is allowed in shia doctrine. a forced government is nothing but dictatorship. even the prophets can not rule over people by force. these are people that choose their rulers. Jesus could not make a government because people did not gather around him but Solomon and the prophet of Islam could make a government.
so the leader in Iran should get elected and supervised by a council that the members of it is elected directly by people every 8 years. leader is not an executive part. but presidency is executive.
the ottoman empire is not regarded Islamic and also the Caliph governments in some arab countries.
2-in Jihad no one can start a war. and the war is only against the aggressor governments not the nations.
from Khomeini testament:"""During the short span of time since the triumph of the Revolution people have seen such agents under the titles "mujahid-e-khalq" (a Jihadist group that now is known as MKO and even west does not bother to recognize it as a terrorist group just because it is against Iran like Jundullah group) ..."""
3-no one is allowed to mimic the basics of his religion even if he or she is born in a family with special beliefs. so believe in God, the last day and the prophets and the religions is something that a person should figure it out on his own. he should choose one he thinks is true but not destructing others beliefs.
4- Are not there any wrong clerics in Iran!? of course there Are.
even Khomeini warned about that""""We are aware that the superpowers have implanted in various communities agents in different disguises such as: "nationalists', 'pan-Iranists" ...(78), 'liberals", 'intellectuals", "spiritualists" and "RELIGIOUS JURISTS". THIS LAST group if given the opportunity are the MOST insidious and harmful. Such agents live, sometimes for decades, among nations with patience, Islamic conduct and deportment""""
clerics can not come to power unless people vote for them in presidency or parlement members like every other ordinary people. especially with the events of 2008 elections people now know that Khomeini was right (I hope so), wrong clerics are the most dangerous !
5- execution is a hard punishment that is passed in court for hard crimes and there is no difference between men or women !
server32.irna.com...

reply to post by glasshouse



You really want me to show you proof of the U.S. and it's interest in the Caspian Sea? I just want to make sure I understand your request correctly.