Terror attack in Iran

[DogOnPorch]

2 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I think post 1989, 9/11 and the Afghan Wars, we can see communists and socialists in Muslim countries a little differently. Many of the best and brightest joined these parties in an effort to modernize their societies and free them from the grip of religion. Socialists are modernists - different pew but same church as ourselves.  

 

Post 1979...

[SpankyMcFarland]

42 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Post 1979...

I'm thinking Berlin Wall and when we stopped fearing the Reds so much. As in Nazi-occupied Eastern Europe, the Left seemed tough enough in Muslim countries to resist tyranny (often at the cost of bringing in tyranny itself, unfortunately). We have a lot more in common with communists than Islamic extremists. 

Edited June 26, 2017 by SpankyMcFarland

[Army Guy]

6 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

HB has worked tirelessly to destroy Lebanon and Syria and you're getting upset because they defended Muslims from genocide in Bosnia. 

I not getting upset spanky, that was not my intent......but one has to measure what their main goal is or was.....It is Irans proxy army in that corner of the world, they say they are to have a major influence in lebanon....once regarded as just a local terrorist group....now they have a inter national presence.....providing arms to the highest bidder, also providing training to the highest bidder.....not just to muslim Bosnians as they claimed......there presence there was not about defending poor muslims as they told the world....they were trying to make a buck, nothing more....

[Army Guy]

11 hours ago, eyeball said:

Isn't pie why we selling weapons and services to dictators?  Yes, because thats what Shining Beacons do...

 

This is why I love you so much AG. You never fail to dump it and immediately stick both feet in it. 

 

Funny when the UN had failed to stop the slaughter for the first couple of years, shit they even did it in front of UN troops, with NO reaction from the world...... it was a NATO , with the US in the lead that stepped in and stopped it all, people forget that part, WTF they were only killing each other right....it was Under NATO that the mass graves were found thousands of military age men, ages 14 to 60 rounded up lead to a secluded area, and killed, some shot, some run over, their favorite ,was to  strike their victims  in the head with a large wooden mallet, and let the bodies float down stream....it was under NATO that people that committed war crimes were charged........ ALL of that stopped once NATO arrived, including the shelling of civilians US aircraft pounds serb croat, and muslim arty positions......some how everyone forgets that one.....

[CITIZEN_2015]

9 hours ago, Rue said:

The fact is  the allied forces, i.e,, Britain, the US and Russia  cooperated on the invasion of Iran and deposed the Shah and replaced him with his nephew because they all saw that Shah although officially neutral, as a sympathizer of the Nazis and Hitler and the allies needed the oil supply and did not want it fall into Nazi control.

The nephew put in power despised the Russians and communism, and was pro British and American. That is a fact  not opinion. He openly sai dso and made that clear.

The Shah of Iran as we know him was pro Western. His country was very Westernized. It did have  gestapo like police force called the SAVAK notorious for arresting and torturing suspected communists and the Shah like many pro Western allies was not democratic when it came to communism or perceive dpolitical enemies. He could be and was brutal at times. The fact is his predecessors claimed to usher in a sharia law regime and claim to be democratic and they are even worse in using state violence and brutality to keep the masses under control.

The fact is Iran is a terrorist state in operation. Each day it terrorizes, mutilates, tortures its own citizens. It also alongs ide Saudi Arabia is the no.1 financier of terrorism across the world. Trying to blame all current affairs on the British and Americans is ridiculous Anyone who knows the history of Persia knows the volatility and brutality that has been a part of many of its past societies. Its often referred to as the birth place life, it has had many incredible civilizations but its also had brutality and violence which was entrenched long before Europeans wanted its oil.

 

Actually there are a few errors in above post.

It is true unlike what DOP said, yes the British and Russians cooperated on the coordinated invasion and deposed the Shah BUT he was replaced with his SON not nephew.

Yes the new Shah despised Russians for Good reasons (as everyone in his right mind would). They tried to take over and separate the North West Azeri province and make it a Soviet bloc. It was his policy and army with US and UN support which liberated that province from Russians. BUT he was not pro-British either because the British exiled his father and likely killed him to (indirectly he died of sadness to see his beloved country under occupation). He despised the British but had to be cozy with them as Britain was a major part of western alliance against Russia plus a good source of weapons (Chieftain tanks) for his army.

Yes the Shah was pro-west because it was during the cold war and Iran was under threat from northern neighbor so in order to protect Iran and his throne he had to get close to US and Nato not to mention the aid he received in 1953 from the CIA to get back his throne.

The pre-Islamic Persia as it used to be called (Persian empire) was NOT violent as it carried out many good deeds. The Very first Charter of Human rights in history which brought equality to all races under Persian Empire was brought in by Persian King 2500 years ago.

http://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/brief-history/

This empire also Freed Jews from slavery some 2500 years ago.

BCE. The conquest of Babylon by Cyrus the Great the founder of the second Iranian dynasty, the Achaemenids, also brought many Jews into the mainland. In 539 BCE, Emperor Cyrus entered Babylon with little resistance. The temple of Marduk their major deity was restored and Cyrus crowned himself in the name of Marduk. The Jewish slaves in Babylon were freed and permitted to go home and reconstruct the temple of Jerusalem and some chose to remain in the new Empire.

The restoration was confirmed by Darius the Great and commenced at the time of Artaxerxes I. Under Darius around 30,000 Jews left Babylon to start work on the temple. The mild treatment Iranians accorded their conquered subjects was part of the Imperial doctrine led by Cyrus the Great which was influenced by his Zoroastrian faith. The policies of the central administration encouraged autonomy in internal affairs with little intervention from the Iranians. For instance, the Satrap (Governor General) of Judah, which constituted the fifth Satrapy, had his own local governor in Samaria with the right of supervision over the deputy in Judah.

Violence started after Arab invasion 1400 years ago.

Edited June 26, 2017 by CITIZEN_2015

[GostHacked]

20 hours ago, Army Guy said:

You make it sound like if the americans had not got involved , the whole matter would have solved itself......Hezbollah was there because it was beneficial to them and them only....they made money hand over fist selling wpns....to any side that wanted them.....they also sold their services as well.....it was a killing ground and they wanted their piece of the pie.....thats what terrorist do......and if you can't see any wrong doing on their part, then perhaps you need to change your color of your glasses.

That works both ways. Regarding the color of your glasses. 

[kactus]

14 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Actually there are a few errors in above post.

It is true unlike what DOP said, yes the British and Russians cooperated on the coordinated invasion and deposed the Shah BUT he was replaced with his SON not nephew.

Yes the new Shah despised Russians for Good reasons (as everyone in his right mind would). They tried to take over and separate the North West Azeri province and make it a Soviet bloc. It was his policy and army with US and UN support which liberated that province from Russians. BUT he was not pro-British either because the British exiled his father and likely killed him to (indirectly he died of sadness to see his beloved country under occupation). He despised the British but had to be cozy with them as Britain was a major part of western alliance against Russia plus a good source of weapons (Chieftain tanks) for his army.

Yes the Shah was pro-west because it was during the cold war and Iran was under threat from northern neighbor so in order to protect Iran and his throne he had to get close to US and Nato not to mention the aid he received in 1953 from the CIA to get back his throne.

The pre-Islamic Persia as it used to be called (Persian empire) was NOT violent as it carried out many good deeds. The Very first Charter of Human rights in history which brought equality to all races under Persian Empire was brought in by Persian King 2500 years ago.

http://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/brief-history/

This empire also Freed Jews from slavery some 2500 years ago.

BCE. The conquest of Babylon by Cyrus the Great the founder of the second Iranian dynasty, the Achaemenids, also brought many Jews into the mainland. In 539 BCE, Emperor Cyrus entered Babylon with little resistance. The temple of Marduk their major deity was restored and Cyrus crowned himself in the name of Marduk. The Jewish slaves in Babylon were freed and permitted to go home and reconstruct the temple of Jerusalem and some chose to remain in the new Empire.

The restoration was confirmed by Darius the Great and commenced at the time of Artaxerxes I. Under Darius around 30,000 Jews left Babylon to start work on the temple. The mild treatment Iranians accorded their conquered subjects was part of the Imperial doctrine led by Cyrus the Great which was influenced by his Zoroastrian faith. The policies of the central administration encouraged autonomy in internal affairs with little intervention from the Iranians. For instance, the Satrap (Governor General) of Judah, which constituted the fifth Satrapy, had his own local governor in Samaria with the right of supervision over the deputy in Judah.

Violence started after Arab invasion 1400 years ago.

Very well stated and factual! Not to forget this little Jewish woman also mentioned in the Bible...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther

You know it doesn't really surprise me. You get certain people here who go on usual rant to label Iran as terrorist state no matter what. Best way is just observe them and see these rants in the greater scheme of things....

Edited June 27, 2017 by kactus

[OftenWrong]

That's nice but they are not Zaroastrians any more. They were persecuted by the Islamified Persians.
This shows that Islam is a problem for people no matter where it goes.

[CITIZEN_2015]

Even Iranians (post Arab invasion) have not been more violent than some Europeans countries or Americans who claim to be non-violent or civilized. Examples are many but I pick a few. They have been far less violent than Nazi Germany, Serbia and Americans (in Vietnam) and Russians (in Afghanistan).

Edited June 27, 2017 by CITIZEN_2015