Iran vs. USA in one picture

reply to post by Corruption Exposed

“Yes this is terrorism”

Well well, finally ! We agree that Hamas is a terrorist organization.

“do you have a specific proven example of a Hezbollah operative doing this?”

I was talking about Hamas, why do you ask about Hezbollah ?

“Not to jump to assumptions but I believe you are refering to the Bulgarian incident”

Wow, just wow! Are you kidding me?? how old are you? Need some memory refreshment ?

April 6th 1994 Afula Israel – car bomb – Hamas – 8 dead.
April 16th 1994 Hadera Israel – suicide bomber – Hamas – 5 dead
October 19th 1994 Tel Aviv – suicide bomber – Hamas – 22 dead
November 11th 1994 Nezarim – Hamas – 3 dead
January 22nd 1995 Beit lid – Islamic Jihad – 22 dead
April 9th 1995 Cfar Darom – Hamas – 8 dead
July 24th 1995 Ramat Gan – Suicide bomber – 6 dead
August 21st 1995 – suicide bober – Hamas – 4 dead
February 25th 1996 Jerusalem– suicide bomber – Hamas – 26 dead
March 3rd 1996 Jerusalem – suicide bomber – Hamas – 19 dead
March 4th 1996 Tel Aviv – suicide bomber – Hamas & Islamic Jihad – 13 dead

And on and on and on. You can verify each and every case if you wish.

Now back to Hezbollah.

"if you are going to use this example as proof of Hezbollah being terrorists I cannot accept these incidents. Hezbollah has every right to defend Lebanon and Gaza from the Zionist invasions. “

Israel has left Lebanon in 2000.
The UN Israel and Lebanon have agreed on the specific border lines. What invasions are you talking about ?

Dozens of Western hostages, including 18 American, were held from 1984 to 1993 in Lebanon by Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad.

In February 1988, Marine Lieut. Col. William R. Higgens, a member of U.N. peacekeeping force, was kidnaped and executed in southern Lebanon by Hezbollah.

Terry Anderson, an AP reporter was held hostage for seven years by Hezbollah.

Buenos Aires bombing – Hezbollah – 85 dead

In 2000 Hezbollah kidnapped and killed 3 Israeli soldiers paroling the Israeli border.
Several more attempts were made until 2006 attack on an Israeli patrol while bombing residential areas as a distraction. All through these years, Hezbollah were constantly firing Israeli civilian targets including the Kibutz Matsuba indecent, where 5 Israelis were murdered by Hezbollah members who crossed the Israeli-Lebanese border.

Seriously dude, I could go on for hours with this.
If these incidents are not terrorism, than I don't know what is. Shame on you.

reply to post by gravitational

if you consider those that are defending themselves in their own Lands with the least eqquipments are terrorists, then what do you call this that UK helps some zhionists to gather some jews by excuse of Germany's genocide in the land of Palestinians ! to base their false country on the victims of real residents of there from christians to muslims. a country that has occupied some lands of Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Egypt. so it's history is full of wars. completely asymetric wars.

The Sabra and Shatila massacre was the massacre of between 762 and 3,500 Palestinian and Lebanese civilians by a gang of expelled former members of the Lebanese Phalangist militia, in the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut, Lebanon between September 16 and September 18, 1982, during the Lebanese civil war.
The massacre was retaliation for the assassination of newly-elected Lebanese president Bachir Gemayel, the leader of the Lebanese Phalanges. It was wrongly assumed that Palestinian militants had carried out the assassination, which is now generally attributed to pro-Syrian militants.
At that time, Israel was at war with the PLO in Lebanon. Israeli forces commanded by Ariel Sharon surrounded the Palestinian refugee camps, controlled access to them, and facilitated the massacre by firing illuminating flares over the camps.[2][3]
en.wikipedia.org...

22 day war: The conflict resulted in between 1,166 and 1,417 Palestinian and 13 Israeli deaths (4 from friendly fire).[52] In September 2009, a UN special mission, headed by the South African Justice Richard Goldstone, produced a
en.wikipedia.org...

33 day war:The conflict is believed to have killed around 1,300 Lebanese people,[42][43][44][45] and 165 Israelis.[46]
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by maes2
if you consider those that are defending themselves in their own Lands with the least eqquipments are terrorists

No, im pretty sure we are calling people who strap explosives to their chest and target civilians specifically terrorists.

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
We all know that Iran supports Hezbollah who are a defensive force in the region. Primarily in Lebanon and Iran but it is also claimed they assist Hamas. This is no different than The US supporting Israel and Saudi Arabia. The Americans and Russians are the biggest arms dealers in the world so why can't Iran get in on the action?

That's about the first honestly open response I've seen you post.

Good question and it's legitimate. No one here has denied that the US and Russia are in the mix. The question for me has always been why do Iranian supporters always deny Iran's activities? It's always been a dance of denial and accusation followed by justification never admitting Iran's hand in the mess ---------- Lather, rinse and repeat.

I'm glad you'll admit finally that Iran does [Like everybody and all countries involved] have blood on their hands as well. So, can we quit playing the lame game that Iran is as pure and lily white as the driven snow bull?

Some of you may believe I was avoiding the question but before it can be answered it must be put into context. As me and GAOTU789 were discussing earlier we cannot aggree on what defines a terrorist organization. His definition came from the Department of Homeland Security who are part of the biggest terrorist organization in the world so obviously I cannot agree with his perceived definition of this label.

We all know that one man's liberators are anther's Terrorist. So, that argument doesn't wash. All sides involved have their agendas and all sides involved have blood on their hands.

That includes IRAN.

Originally posted by nightbringr

Originally posted by Son of Will
No it is circular reasoning. I guess i need to explain the concept - you are concluding that Iran executes people for being gay.

Nothing circular about it. If you wish to dispute what the president of Iran calmly proclaimed to the world, id love to discuss it further. The video link is there for you to view. I can assure you, you wont be able to spin his meaning like so many others love to do when he says he would love to destroy Israel.

Originally posted by Son of Will
And again, the rhetoric of a political leader is totally irrelevant to the legal practices of his/her country. It's only important to people trying to justify a preconceived conclusion about a country, or for clerical purposes.

Of course your right. A countries leader is never responsible for its actions.

edit on 9-8-2012 by nightbringr because: eidt for

Some people dont understand sarcasm.

edit on 9-8-2012 by nightbringr because: (no reason given)

Do you even understand what is going on in this argument? Not one of your responses has been intelligent or relevant. I'm disappointed. And your obsession with that Ahmadinejad quote is a bit disturbing. It doesn't mean anything. Unless you're trying to make the dubious argument that he got rid of all gay Iranians, hence his comment?

I'm trying to help you out here.

Where's africa on this list? Think the diamond mines...

Originally posted by Son of Will
Do you even understand what is going on in this argument? Not one of your responses has been intelligent or relevant. I'm disappointed. And your obsession with that Ahmadinejad quote is a bit disturbing. It doesn't mean anything. Unless you're trying to make the dubious argument that he got rid of all gay Iranians, hence his comment?

I'm trying to help you out here.

I know that you are saying Ahmadinejad can say or do anything he wants and not be held accountable for his actions.

Why, i have no idea. Your a bit out of touch with todays political realities i think.

reply to post by SLAYER69

I'm glad you'll admit finally that Iran does [Like everybody and all countries involved] have blood on their hands as well. So, can we quit playing the lame game that Iran is as pure and lily white as the driven snow bull?

Just as nobody attacking Iran denies global "terrorist" activity conducted by the US and Russia, nobody defending Iran denies their shady business as well. The big question is really not much more than semantics. Both sides here are pigeon-holed into an obsolete way of looking at the world.

The nation-state is a dying concept. For example, the US has been called imperialistic, but they are certainly not. We are, as someone aptly stated earlier, an attack dog, on a leash controlled by NATO and other partially-global entities. Corporate and banking interests, along with the subtle ideology of secret societies, are the real driving forces behind many conflicts that on the surface appear as nation-state conflicts.

Iran is very complex. An elected leader, a supreme Ayatollah, and an elected body of clerics to bridge the gap, more or less. But like all Muslim countries, the religion is in many ways more important than regional boundaries. Their religion provides more sense of identity to them than nationality. Combined with sharing common enemies, this is why Iran supports various organizations outside Iran.

Every armed government agency in existence has gone after civilians at one point. So in the name of reason, stop calling anything associated with Iran a "terrorist" organization. If you're going to call Hamas a terrorist organization, then you must call everyone else a terrorist too, and the discussion will go nowhere. Kinda like the last 30 pages. Please try to be honest and objective.

However, none of those organizations are intended to overthrow a government, or occupy a nation. Not even Hamas can qualify in that category. They recognize Israel's right to exist. So, the OP's picture is indeed correct, as far as Iran's column goes. They have not landed troops on foreign land with the intent to overthrow that government or occupy the territory.

Of course the US's column is not entirely accurate nor is it put in proper context, but since so many obvious zionists are clinging to this thread, that's not nearly as important as bringing some clarity to views of Iran.

Originally posted by nightbringr

Originally posted by Son of Will
Do you even understand what is going on in this argument? Not one of your responses has been intelligent or relevant. I'm disappointed. And your obsession with that Ahmadinejad quote is a bit disturbing. It doesn't mean anything. Unless you're trying to make the dubious argument that he got rid of all gay Iranians, hence his comment?

I'm trying to help you out here.

I know that you are saying Ahmadinejad can say or do anything he wants and not be held accountable for his actions.

Why, i have no idea. Your a bit out of touch with todays political realities i think.

What actions? Has he personally ordered gay people be put to death? Fortunately, your deluded opinions do not translate into political realities.

Originally posted by Son of Will
What actions? Has he personally ordered gay people be put to death? Fortunately, your deluded opinions do not translate into political realities.

Doesnt matter if he "personally" did or not.

Lets me explain this to you in easy to understand english. He is the leader of his country. Therefore, he is responsible for its actions. When America bombs Iraq, who did people blame? Thats right, Bush/Cheney. Are you saying they are not responsible for the USAs actions there either?

And again, he proudly announced to both the UN and American universities that there are "No gays in Iran". So either he is:

A) completely deluded,

B) an evil man,

C) some combination of both.

Ill take C for $500 dollars, Alex.

reply to post by nightbringr


That is a statement, not an action.

Once again - has Ahmadinejad - or Iran - executed anybody for being gay, or has any action come about from his comment?

Eta - you already lost this argument four comments ago. I'm just wondering when you'll have the guts to acknowledge it.

Originally posted by Son of Will

Originally posted by nightbringr

Originally posted by Son of Will
Do you even understand what is going on in this argument? Not one of your responses has been intelligent or relevant. I'm disappointed. And your obsession with that Ahmadinejad quote is a bit disturbing. It doesn't mean anything. Unless you're trying to make the dubious argument that he got rid of all gay Iranians, hence his comment?

I'm trying to help you out here.

I know that you are saying Ahmadinejad can say or do anything he wants and not be held accountable for his actions.

Why, i have no idea. Your a bit out of touch with todays political realities i think.

What actions? Has he personally ordered gay people be put to death? Fortunately, your deluded opinions do not translate into political realities.

I am sure you will respond with something like the video is fake. The Iranians are executing people for being Gay. Ahmadinejad is the President. He is to be held accountable for his governments actions. For crying out loud you act like just because he did not pull the lever to hang these people himself that he is not guilty. Funny how our President in the US seems to be held accountable for everything yet the Iranian President is not?
This is the Iran that some want to protect.

Originally posted by nightbringr
Lets me explain this to you in easy to understand english. He is the leader of his country. Therefore, he is responsible for its actions. When America bombs Iraq, who did people blame? Thats right, Bush/Cheney. Are you saying they are not responsible for the USAs actions there either?

Ah oh. the political system in Iran is different. so foreign observers just get confused. there is leadership, a presidency, parlement, judiciary system.
what does Ahmadinejad to do with Gays ! Gay sex is in private life of people. yes there is execution law as an capital punishment for public Gay sex. but the role of that is just to prevent public crimes and I have not seen such executions because of being Gay ! suppose that someone does a Gay rape and a scandal in public occures and the judiciary system convicts him for execution. then what can that poor Ahmadinejad does for or against that ! just nothing. because judiciary system and executive government (presidency) and parlement are independent of each other. just the leadership can does something for or against that.

Originally posted by nightbringr
And again, he proudly announced to both the UN and American universities that there are "No gays in Iran". So either he is:

A) completely deluded,

B) an evil man,

C) some combination of both.

Ill take C for $500 dollars, Alex.

What concerns me is that this guy ISN'T the true leader of Iran. The supreme leader of Iran is literally "the supreme leader" , Ali Khamenei, the successor to Ayatollah you-know-who and is literally a cross between Hitler and the pope. Khamenei has the power to appoint and dismiss any general or minister, veto the president, and anyone wanting to run for office needs his approval, all depending on whether he finds them to be religious enough. Even if someone is elected, they still need to be appointed by him. He's had more than a few reformer political candidates arrested.

What does this mean? Literally everything president Ahmadinejad does needs to have the complete approval of the supreme leader, otherwise he can't do it. His words aren't just his own words- according to their own constitution his views need to be state policy, so if he ever gets replaced by someone else, don't expect his replacement to act any differently.

reply to post by Son of Will


www.huffingtonpost.com...

www.guardian.co.uk...

www.guardian.co.uk...

www.voanews.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

Id LOVE for you to actually read the last link.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by nightbringr
And again, he proudly announced to both the UN and American universities that there are "No gays in Iran". So either he is:

A) completely deluded,

B) an evil man,

C) some combination of both.

Ill take C for $500 dollars, Alex.

What concerns me is that this guy ISN'T the true leader of Iran. The supreme leader of Iran is literally "the supreme leader" , Ali Khamenei, the successor to Ayatollah you-know-who and is literally a cross between Hitler and the pope. Khamenei has the power to appoint and dismiss any general or minister, veto the president, and anyone wanting to run for office needs his approval, all depending on whether he finds them to be religious enough. Even if someone is elected, they still need to be appointed by him. He's had more than a few reformer political candidates arrested.

What does this mean? Literally everything president Ahmadinejad does needs to have the complete approval of the supreme leader, otherwise he can't do it. His words aren't just his own words- according to their own constitution his views need to be state policy, so if he ever gets replaced by someone else, don't expect his replacement to act any differently.

I completely agree, but this man "IS" the voice of Iran. I have never seen the Ayatollah tour and speak at universities.

reply to post by CaptGizmo

I just searched about that video. they were a group of people in charge of robbery, ... and a gay rape of a 13 years old boy. the two that got executed were the main members. moreover no one under 18 is allowed to be executed.
and there are arabs in Iran but they are citizens of Iran.
if you rape in Iran and if you have private complainant and if you are over 18 they will execute you and Ahmadinejad can not do anything. so if you love your lifes do not rape in Iran,please !

reply to post by CaptGizmo


From wikipedia -

On July 19, 2005, the Iranian Students' News Agency (ISNA) posted an article in Persian describing the execution of the two youths. Its headline stated that they had been executed for "lavat beh onf", which means "sodomy/homosexual sex by force" and is a legal term used for rape of men by men.[3][4] Earlier that day—on the morning of the executions—Quds, the local daily newspaper in Mashhad, had published a report on the executions. It gave a detailed account of how the two had raped a 13-year-old boy, and included statements by the father of the rape victim.[3]

According to the courts they raped a 13 year old boy. The only real controversy is that Iran executed minors. But that sort of thing happens everywhere. Youtube is not a place for unbiased material my friend.

reply to post by maes2


Oh, they are not executed for being gays, they are sent to the mad house to be cured, right?

"moreover if one says this they do not execute it but send him to Madhouse to be cured ! “

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by nightbringr
I completely agree, but this man "IS" the voice of Iran. I have never seen the Ayatollah tour and speak at universities.

I'm not sure if I would call him the "voice" of Iran. More like the "megaphone" of Iran. The entire reason he even got to be president was because he needed to have the exact same views as the Supreme Leader to just be allowed to run for election. There's no way he could say anything contrary to the Supreme Leader's platform if he wanted to keep his political career (and freedom, probably) intact.

At any rate, the OP's post is still nothing but nonsense. Did he ever explain why North Korea is on his list of reasons why the US is a "warmonger"?