Iran vs. USA in one picture

To anyone with at least some knowledge of history this is obvious. Convincing the sheep that it's not the other way round is the hard part.

reply to post by shells4u


I think what he's trying to say is that there has been, and continues to be, a serious mis-representation of the facts (if you can call it that) when it comes to Iran, and whether it is a threat to the world and to the United States.

The mainstream media and the main political parties are united in their message that Iran poses a grave threat - as if this was some unquestionable fact - yet, what is the truth to this assertion?

This thread makes the point that, by looking in detail at historical records, you will probably come to a very different conclusion...

Since the Islamic Revolution, which deposed a US-sponsored dictator in Iran, the US has been seeking to overthrow its popular regime by any means - and, indeed, the invasion of Irak was part of that and sponsored by the US (just ask Donald Rumsfeld).

Now, for the past five years, the american and western propaganda about Iran has intensified and brought us all to the brink of war with that State. Of course, some of us in the west might not agree with their theocratic system; we might also feel sorry for people whose rights are being abused. But does the United States have a right to attack and overthrow any government it doesn't like and labels "evil"? On whose "moral authority"?

For me, the point of this thread is quite simple, it is healthy and it is timely - don't fall for the hype, do your own research, make up your own mind.

Originally posted by Haknow
For me, the point of this thread is quite simple, it is healthy and it is timely - don't fall for the hype, do your own research, make up your own mind.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner! That's exactly the point of this thread, and everything else you said too.

The US, as well as the IAEA, are nitpicking at nothing, and making mountains out of molehills- more like anthills- when the fact of the matter is Iran has attacked no one in a very, very long time. While the MIC of this country and others have gotten filthy rich from all the warfare, reconstruction, and subsequent contracts. If the mainstream Muslim religion was so serious about killing infidels, Iran would have attacked just about anyone and everyone they deemed as infidels. Yeah, there are extremists in every religion. But the only ones on the actual warpath are sitting up at the highest levels of our government. And have been since WW II.

It's damn time it stopped.

reply to post by Haknow

I think what he's trying to say is that there has been, and continues to be, a serious mis-representation of the facts (if you can call it that) when it comes to Iran, and whether it is a threat to the world and to the United States.

Iran has threatened on several occasions to close the Gulf to shipping. This could destroy the world's economy if they were able to do it. Are you implying that they are incapable of carrying through on their threats?

The mainstream media and the main political parties are united in their message that Iran poses a grave threat - as if this was some unquestionable fact - yet, what is the truth to this assertion?

You are overlooking the subtleties of the situation. It is certainly true that some American politicians are engaged in fear mongering to score domestic points, but the general consensus is that Iran be contained, not engaged militarily. If Iran has no hegemonic intentions, there is nothing to be contained. Meanwhile, the European consensus has been one of diplomatic engagement.

This thread makes the point that, by looking in detail at historical records, you will probably come to a very different conclusion...

The OP presumed to compare the military activities of Iran and the United States in a blatantly biased way. It completely overlooked Iran's role in Lebanon and Syria, for example.

Since the Islamic Revolution, which deposed a US-sponsored dictator in Iran, the US has been seeking to overthrow its popular regime by any means - and, indeed, the invasion of Irak was part of that and sponsored by the US (just ask Donald Rumsfeld).

This must be some special use of the word "popular" I have not encountered before.

Now, for the past five years, the american and western propaganda about Iran has intensified and brought us all to the brink of war with that State. Of course, some of us in the west might not agree with their theocratic system; we might also feel sorry for people whose rights are being abused. But does the United States have a right to attack and overthrow any government it doesn't like and labels "evil"? On whose "moral authority"?

It does not nor will not. Containment remains the consensus. True, the political right likes to rattle its sabres, but then, so does the Iranian government. Both sides are bluffing.

For me, the point of this thread is quite simple, it is healthy and it is timely - don't fall for the hype, do your own research, make up your own mind.

I agree with you on that. Neither "side" plays with its own people in good faith.

Proud to be born In Britain - Disgusted by my government
Because they are not the servants of the people or represent the people.
They are tyrants who must be opposed

reply to post by TrueAmerican

reply to post by purplemer

reply to post by Haknow

my signature shows that you are a human. because you are concerned about people's rights. but I see many people that see an Islamic government the same as theocracy of Medieval I just want to clarify that:
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 Islam 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 the so called assembly of experts that the members of it is elected directly by people every 8 years. leader is not an executive part. but presidency which is elected every four years is executive.
the ottoman empire is not regarded Islamic and also the Caliph governments in some arab countries. they are Inheritable kingdoms.

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 are 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- some people think that there are sitting in their court to execute people especially women. but execution is a hard and rare punishment that is passed in court for hard crimes and there is no difference between men or women !

anyhow I praise your idea that foreign obligation is not the solution.

reply to post by DJW001


No, I'm not ignoring Iran's threat to close the straight of Hormuz. I am saying that there has been a serious mis-representation of the threat that Iran poses, i.e., I think the threat is presented as being far more serious than it actually is. I hope we can agree on that. Iran does not pose a direct threat to the US or the West.

Regarding your second point, no, I don't think I am "overlooking the subtleties of the situation" - I am just focusing on what I believe is an important question underlying this thread, which is "what is the truth in the allegation that Iran poses a direct threat to the US"? Strategies about how the US should deal with Iran, whether through military engagement or containment, is different question altogether.

I agree the picture in the OP is slightly misleading, in that Iran does have covert activities elsewhere in the region and does seek to extend its influence - as all states do (some more than others though!). However, the picture does make in my view a valid point, which is that whereas the US has a culture of external intervention - some would say imperialism - that is in no way comparable to Iran's role in the region and the world. In comparison, Iran is relatively peaceful and its influence confined to its own region.

Regarding the word "popular"...well, I would like to remind you that the Islamic Republic of Iran was established through a popular revolution led by students, intellectuals and clericks. In this context, I use the word to mean precsiely that - it is a government established by the people of Iran, and as such, derives its legitimacy from the people.

You say the US government "does not" and "will not" label other government as "evil"...Have you forgotten Georges W. Bush's speech on the Axis of Evil? That is a good example of american exceptionalism if I ever saw one. There is a pervasive belief among american political elites that the US has some special purpose in the world and is the only one with the moral authority to decide what is right or wrong. This vision is seriously flawed and dangerous.

I am glad that we can, at least, agree on the need for people to make up their own mind.

Regards,

Haknow

reply to post by Haknow

Regarding the word "popular"...well, I would like to remind you that the Islamic Republic of Iran was established through a popular revolution led by students, intellectuals and clericks. In this context, I use the word to mean precsiely that - it is a government established by the people of Iran, and as such, derives its legitimacy from the people.

The Iranian Constitution was the brainchild of a single man, the Ayatollah Khomeni. The government was not established by the people, it was imposed upon them. Its claim to legitimacy derives not from the will of the electorate, but the will of Allah. You do make some good points, however.

reply to post by maes2


Thank you for your contribution and comments.

Indeed, I know there is a sharp contrast between the image we in the west are presented with and the reality of Iran's political system. Too many Americans and Europeans still believe Iran to be the brutal theocratic regime it is depicted to be in the mainstream media. I think many, though, are beginning to question this narrative.

I haven't been in Iran myself, but hope to be able to one day, so I can see for myself and share my perspective with others.

There is, I think, much to learn from our respective systems.

We are, in the end, all human beings and part of the same creation. We should be thankful and appreciative of this diversity.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Haknow

 

The Iranian Constitution was the brainchild of a single man, the Ayatollah Khomeni. The government was not established by the people, it was imposed upon them. Its claim to legitimacy derives not from the will of the electorate, but the will of Allah. You do make some good points, however.

the Islamic republic was a revolution that elected it's kind of regime by a refrandum with over 90% votes for it.
en.wikipedia.org...
and this is the constitution.
en.wikipedia.org...
and this how the leader get elected and supervised.
en.wikipedia.org...

once someone said:
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.

and I said:
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 Islam doctrine is different, christianity may not have this capacity.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by daaskapital
I have a question...

Why isn't Australia on the list?

Cause it is owned by Britain?

Such a shame that England isn't on that list. England had to suffer 40 years of coordinated IRA bombings funded largely by US citizens and banks.

US Americans = friend to none, enemy to all.

reply to post by binkman


i think whoever controls America took control of England during the Thatcher years.

At least that's when we gave away all our profitable businesses to the rich. (Privatisation)

reply to post by DJW001


what is this?

Originally posted by Beavers
reply to post by binkman

 

i think whoever controls America took control of England during the Thatcher years.

At least that's when we gave away all our profitable businesses to the rich. (Privatisation)

edit on 8-8-2012 by Beavers because: (no reason given)

The US has been indirectly attacking us for many years before the Thatcher years.

reply to post by binkman


yes, I just mean that I think we've had puppet governments ever since.

I certainly don't recall a politician doing anything positive for the people since that period.

Originally posted by Beavers
reply to post by DJW001

 

what is this?

This is 1933 Nazi propaganda poster. See how the Treaty of Versailles left Germany in a defenseless posture. Germans were called to mobilize for the war production, to correct the mortal danger of the of the Versailles Treaty.

benatlas.com...
longstreet.typepad.com...

reply to post by purplemer


Don't you just love how you slid that oh-so-pertinent picture in there, and no one's said a word?

Exactly, just who is threatening WHO here? One look at that picture says it all, perhaps even better than the pic in the OP. Put the two together and this conspiracy is busted wide open. There IS a huge conspiracy against Iran.

Once in very long while here I actually do appreciate the flags, folks. If nothing else for maximum exposure to counter the intense deceit and propaganda spewing from the mouths and typing fingers of the liars. So yeah, I wouldn't mind at all if this thread were flagged to the ATS home page tomorrow...Or today.