Iran, a Real Look at the Country's Peoples

[Catchme]

With the ramping up of rhetoric againgst Iran, with equally phoney Intell, like that of Iraq, having a good look at what is Iran is a must. How better to do it with pictures.

Each link shows a different aspect of Iranian society. It has a young demographic of peoples, and these young people are sick of wars Wars that destoyed their families, they are without parents and grandparents, and they want a democracy. And it is coming, and will continue to develop as long as they are left alone.

This young demographic wants western ways, they are NOT fundamentalists. The Mullahs are keeping a tenuous hold on them. Any action against them, particulariliy when it is so unwarranted would be wrong criminal and very damaging to their burgeoning democracy.

http://images.google.ca/images?&q=tehran+snow

http://images.google.ca/images?&q=tehran

http://www.lucasgray.com/video/peacetrain.html

http://www.irandefence.net/showthread.php?t=32

Now juxposition those pictures you have just viewed with the ones here:

Hiroshima and Nagasaki]The results of a Nuclear Attack upon LIVING people

That is what Iran and Iranians will look like in the advent of a nuclear strike that Bush seems to be egging on.

Then think about what such an attack would do to the rest of the world?

[Canadian Blue]

Harper wants us to go to war with Iran, that's the first time I've heard about it.

From what I understand Iran is a beautiful place, with streets of gold, gumdrop lanes, and rivers made of chocolate were all the children were laughing and playing in the grassy field.

I highly doubt Bush will fire a nuke into Iran, and I highly doubt Harper will fire a nuke into Iran, apparently Canada has nuclear weapon's now and is aiming them at Iran.

[Catchme]

Did you look at the pic links, as it seems not? Too bad, as perhaps you could've had an on topic discussion. Like what do you think about the use of nukes against innocent peoples?

Facts:

Harper has just given formal verbal support to Israel, after MacKay gave them the news of it news when there, this is significant, and must be remembered by Canadians.

Israel has threatened to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities with nukes. because maybe in 10 years theymay have nuclear capabilities. Yes, there is proof and I have already posted it in this forum, and you have even addressed it. So, now because Harper told Israel we stand behind them NO MATTER what, our Canadian hands will be awash with the blood and nuclear massacre of Iranians if indeed Israel does nuke Iran.

The USA has 4 Battle groups in the Persian Gulf, to ensure that oil shipping safely proceeds, at the least, or at the most, to assist Israel with their "targeted" bombing.

3 US former military leaders have came out and told Bush not to go there as he has no reason to. Yes, the links to this are also found in this forum and you and I have discussed them.

The US Congresss is warning Bush not to go there, and are busily making it illegal for Bush to do so, and not providing funding. They are not doing that for no reason. However, Bush will use what he has deployed in the ME, for Iraq, by trying to tie Iran to Iraq, the same way he did when he lied about Iraq links to Afghanistan. Again the links about this are in this forum and were discussed between you and I.

IMV, the only thing now is how long it will take for it to happen. Again, I say by the end of next week, or before March and the very latest would be the end of March.

By Harper's unconditional support of the USA, it means that he upholds all the lies the Bush admin made in both Iraq and Iran. And that he supports their actions of autrocities against these peoples and those they illegally detained, as well.

As such, he is as much a liar as Bush et al.

[Canadian Blue]

I haven't read any reports that Harper would support a nuclear attack against Iran, and to say such is an innane argument. How many nation's have shown some support towards Israel, many.

3 US former military leaders have came out and told Bush not to go there as he has no reason to. Yes, the links to this are also found in this forum and you and I have discussed them.

I've read the links, and so far their is not indication their will be a massive nuclear attack on Iran.

IMV, the only thing now is how long it will take for it to happen. Again, I say by the end of next week, or before March and the very latest would be the end of March.

And when it does, I'll come out against it. So far I haven't seen indication's the US will engage in a major offensive for a number of reason's. They don't have the manpower, the military is stretched to the limit, and their is no backing internationally, or even domestically for an attack. Such an action could lead to a major bashlack from the American public, congress, and the senate.

Harper has just given formal verbal support to Israel, after MacKay gave them the news of it news when there, this is significant, and must be remembered by Canadians.

Is that a bad thing.

[August1991]

Ah yes, beautiful Tehran under the snow.

Catchme, have you ever been to Tehran? What do you really know of Iranian society? To give this question a Canadian twist, have you ever heard of Zahra Kazemi?

Don't let your hatred for Bush overcome your ignorance of other countries and other people living elsewhere in the world.

[BC_chick]

I haven't read any reports that Harper would support a nuclear attack against Iran, and to say such is an innane argument. How many nation's have shown some support towards Israel, many.

I think Catchme explained quite clearly that it's Israel that plans on nuking Iran, and Harper has expressed unconditional support for Israel's policies.

As such, Harper supports nuclear attack on Iran.

Remember the logic classes:

If a = b

and b = c

then it stands that a = c

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle1290331.ece

[Canadian Blue]

Support for another democratic nation doesn't result in a support for a nuclear attack on Iran. That is simply innane. That's like saying when we were allies with the United States in the 50's and 60's, that meant we were also in support of segregation.

[sharkman]

I haven't read any reports that Harper would support a nuclear attack against Iran, and to say such is an innane argument. How many nation's have shown some support towards Israel, many.

I think Catchme explained quite clearly that it's Israel that plans on nuking Iran, and Harper has expressed unconditional support for Israel's policies.

As such, Harper supports nuclear attack on Iran.

Apparently Catchme can read minds as he has divined that Israel is going to nuke Iran. Well, It makes perfect sense, what with the repeated threats of destruction their government has made on Iran, the denials of Iran's storied history and having pow wow sessions with Iran's enemies. Oh wait, I'm talking about Iran's threats. Never mind...

Catchy, maybe you could turn your finely tuned analytical prowess on the author of all the actual Threats of destruction, Iran, and see what it is they plan to do. Since they are getting nukes.

[Catchme]

When one country gives formal total backing to whatever another country does, it means they are supporting them in whatever they do. That is carte blanche in a big way.

From BC Chicks link above:

ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.

Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources.

Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said.

Israeli and American officials have met several times to consider military action. Military analysts said the disclosure of the plans could be intended to put pressure on Tehran to halt enrichment, cajole America into action or soften up world opinion in advance of an Israeli attack.

Some analysts warned that Iranian retaliation for such a strike could range from disruption of oil supplies to the West to terrorist attacks against Jewish targets around the world.

Unless Harper, clearly speaks out, against any Israelis nuclear aggression, it means he is supportive of it. And indeed speaking out against it could actually slow things, but he has not done either, as of yet, and this is significant considering the USA military build up and anti-Iran rhetoric continuing to build.

Moreover, in the face of this, his giving verbal support to all the Israel, at this particular time, does gives tacit approval of what Israel is planning and could accelerate it even.

[Canadian Blue]

Unless Harper, clearly speaks out, against any Israelis nuclear aggression, it means he is supportive of it. And indeed speaking out against it could actually slow things, but he has not done either, as of yet, and this is significant considering the USA military build up and anti-Iran rhetoric continuing to build.

Aren't the Iranian's the ones that talk about wiping Israel off the map, and saying the holocaust never happened. I'd rather Harper actually using diplomacy instead of spewing some BS which probably isn't even true with regards to Israel's supposed nuclear aggression.

If Israel was planning on firing nuclear missiles at Iran I'd imagine we'd be hearing alot more about it from the United Nations and European nation's.

[scribblet]

Unless Harper, clearly speaks out, against any Israelis nuclear aggression, it means he is supportive of it. And indeed speaking out against it could actually slow things, but he has not done either, as of yet, and this is significant considering the USA military build up and anti-Iran rhetoric continuing to build.

Moreover, in the face of this, his giving verbal support to all the Israel, at this particular time, does gives tacit approval of what Israel is planning and could accelerate it even.

Wrong!!!! This is simply your bias and interpretation of support of Israel defending itself. Harper has never, ever said he would support nuclear war. I don't doubt that many leaders would secretly wish Israel luck in destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities though.

All this talk about the U.S. attacking Iran is simply mischief and innuendo meant to stir it up and promote more hatred towards Bush and Israel.

Personally I'm pleased that we finally have PM willing to take a stand against terrorism instead of the usual screaming that Hezbollah et are just poor defenseless, harmless terrorist organizations being being beat up by that big bad Israelis. And you know, poor Iran, they mean no harm

[Catchme]

Unless Harper, clearly speaks out, against any Israelis nuclear aggression, it means he is supportive of it. And indeed speaking out against it could actually slow things, but he has not done either, as of yet, and this is significant considering the USA military build up and anti-Iran rhetoric continuing to build.

Moreover, in the face of this, his giving verbal support to all the Israel, at this particular time, does gives tacit approval of what Israel is planning and could accelerate it even.

Wrong!!!! This is simply your bias and interpretation of support of Israel defending itself. Harper has never, ever said he would support nuclear war. I don't doubt that many leaders would secretly wish Israel luck in destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities though.

All this talk about the U.S. attacking Iran is simply mischief and innuendo meant to stir it up and promote more hatred towards Bush and Israel.

Personally I'm pleased that we finally have PM willing to take a stand against terrorism instead of the usual screaming that Hezbollah et are just poor defenseless, harmless terrorist organizations being being beat up by that big bad Israelis. And you know, poor Iran, they mean no harm

No sadly, I am not wrong, perhaps some here do not have an understanding of what it means when a nation gives verbal carte blanche of support to another country. And I highly doubt that any world leaders who have a rational thought in their head would be supporting of Israel taking out, or trying to take out Irans nuclear plants considering what it entails.

Moreover, comments made saying that the US and Israel attacking Iran is simply mischeif and innuendo, are highly suspect in the face of much evdience to the contrary.

Target Iran: US able to strike in the spring

Despite denials, Pentagon plans for possible attack on nuclear sites are well advanced

A second battle group has been ordered to the Gulf and extra missiles have already been sent out. Meanwhile oil is being stockpiled. Photograph: Reuters

US preparations for an air strike against Iran are at an advanced stage, in spite of repeated public denials by the Bush administration, according to informed sources in Washington.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2010086,00.html

Plus, all the other links provided in other Iran threads clearly point to action by the USA and Israel against Iran.

Again where does Harper stand upon the use of nukes against other peoples? Apparently firmly behind Israel and the USA.

I am going to add a poll to this thread.

[scribblet]

No sadly, I am not wrong, perhaps some here do not have an understanding of what it means when a nation gives verbal carte blanche of support to another country. And I highly doubt that any world leaders who have a rational thought in their head would be supporting of Israel taking out, or trying to take out Irans nuclear plants considering what it entails.

Well, sadly, I disagree, and of course yours is just another opinion and I'm sure we do understand.

BTW, Clinton took out Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbours - and all that entailed - or didn't.

[sharkman]

Catchme, it sounds like you miss Chretien, who could talk out of both sides of his mouth. He was famous for changing his position on an issue within a couple of weeks, all done with a straight face. Or letting his underlings mouth off, saying something he'd love to say, and pretend he was upset about it but not really doing anything about their insubordination.

But he's long gone now, and we'll have do make do with someone who says what he means and keeps his word. Concerning Israel, you can't assume Harper's made a statement on using nukes on Iran unless he actually makes a verbal statement that says so. Otherwise you are just speculating. Isn't it useless to assume something this important and then let yourself become upset about it when it isn't true?

[Catchme]

No, I do not think it is unreasonable to assume that Harper 100% supports Israel in whatever action they take. He could've and should've given a rider to his support saying; " This government does not support the use of nuclear force against another nation and its peoples." He did not. He gave unequivical support only.

Moreover, had he made a clear statement against the use of nukes perhaps he could have positioned Canada as a serious broker for dialogue and diplomacy in this esculating situation. Instead he has added fuel.

If Israel uses nukes against Iran, the huge Iranian death toll, and world devastation, resulting will be upon the hands of Canadians, beacsue of Harper's failure to take a clear stand against the use of nukes.

[scribblet]

No, I do not think it is unreasonable to assume that Harper 100% supports Israel in whatever action they take. He could've and should've given a rider to his support saying; " This government does not support the use of nuclear force against another nation and its peoples." He did not. He gave unequivical support only.

Moreover, had he made a clear statement against the use of nukes perhaps he could have positioned Canada as a serious broker for dialogue and diplomacy in this esculating situation. Instead he has added fuel.

If Israel uses nukes against Iran, the huge Iranian death toll, and world devastation, resulting will be upon the hands of Canadians, beacsue of Harper's failure to take a clear stand against the use of nukes.

Absolute rot!!

[sharkman]

No, I do not think it is unreasonable to assume that Harper 100% supports Israel in whatever action they take. He could've and should've given a rider to his support saying; " This government does not support the use of nuclear force against another nation and its peoples." He did not. He gave unequivical support only.

Moreover, had he made a clear statement against the use of nukes perhaps he could have positioned Canada as a serious broker for dialogue and diplomacy in this esculating situation. Instead he has added fuel.

If Israel uses nukes against Iran, the huge Iranian death toll, and world devastation, resulting will be upon the hands of Canadians, beacsue of Harper's failure to take a clear stand against the use of nukes.

If Harper made a rider like that, he would have to make all kinds of riders about things out of the realm of reality. For instance, since he has never come out against the use of nuclear weapons on Mars, then he MUST support the U.S.'s probable use of them on Martians.

[scribblet]

If Harper made a rider like that, he would have to make all kinds of riders about things out of the realm of reality. For instance, since he has never come out against the use of nuclear weapons on Mars, then he MUST support the U.S.'s probable use of them on Martians.

right on; just more Creative Thinking 101, I'm beginning to wonder if some of these statements on Harper are coming from Mars, they are so alien.

[Canadian Blue]

Listen guys, it's all Israel's fault, no matter what.

Unless Harper, clearly speaks out, against any Israelis nuclear aggression, it means he is supportive of it. And indeed speaking out against it could actually slow things, but he has not done either, as of yet, and this is significant considering the USA military build up and anti-Iran rhetoric continuing to build.

If Harper makes a statement against Israel's "nuclear aggression" the rest of the western world would look like this:

The reason, Israel isn't talking about wiping out Iran, the Iranian's are talking about wiping out Israel but we'll ignore that for some reason.

[Catchme]

On the contrary Israel has talked about it, and indeed the rest of the world even Russia realizes that Israel has every intention of nuking Iran. It seems that there is only the handful here who do not wish to acknowledge it.

[sharkman]

If Israel uses nukes against Iran, the huge Iranian death toll, and world devastation, resulting will be upon the hands of Canadians, beacsue of Harper's failure to take a clear stand against the use of nukes.

And so in conclusion conservative friends, can you spot the fear, the loathing, and yes, the hatred at Harper in the above comment? By not condeming Israel for something they haven't said, Harper has pretty much become the devil, according to catchme. The liberalist fanaticism spouted here makes no sense, has no logic, and is a knee jerk reaction of the highest order. And yet Catchme believes it with all his/her heart, and nothing can cure Harper derangement syndrome. All you can do is have pity.

[scribblet]

The reason, Israel isn't talking about wiping out Iran, the Iranian's are talking about wiping out Israel but we'll ignore that for some reason.

Guess we just ignore that one.

Part of the contemporary anti semitism is trying to downplay the actual deaths during the holocaust, and giving Ahmenijad credibility on the issue of holocaust denial. I've read on rabble and elsewhere attempts to spin or deny Ahmenijad's words.

First we had the Holocaust cartoons then his conference which shows Ahmedinijad's issue is with all Jews while exposing this "anti-Zionism" nonsense for what it really is - hatred of Jews.

The contemporary anti semites only care about using their twisted viewpoints to push their anti U.S. agenda.

Good article here on why the Left Hates Israel

http://www.internationalwallofprayer.org/A...tes-Israel.html

I'd like to take a few minutes to examine each and consider how their hostility towards Israel -- which at times borders on the pathological -- is manifested. Then I'll come to the heart of my thesis: What it is about Israel that drives the Left nuts.

. And yet Catchme believes it with all his/her heart, and nothing can cure Harper derangement syndrome. All you can do is have pity.

I guess this is on a par with Bush Derangement Syndrome - an unreasonable and pathalogical hatred........

[Catchme]

you have Gen. Oded Tira, chief artillery officer of the Israeli Defense Forces declaring last month that "an American strike on Iran is essential" for the very existence of the Jewish State

http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp02092007.html

and then there is this:

In a very interesting analysis last month, the former chief of staff of the Russian Army, Gen. Leonid Ivashov, predicted a U.S. nuclear strike on Iran by this April. "Within weeks from now," he wrote, "we will see the informational warfare machine start working. The public opinion is already under pressure. There will be a growing anti-Iranian militaristic hysteria, new information leaks, disinformation, etc."

and this:

But now it (Israel) is feverishly beating the drums for a U.S. war on Iran. And as Cheney has pointedly noted, if the U.S. doesn't attack Iran, "Israel might do it without being asked." Most likely it will, if it happens, be a joint effort.

And this:

On May 8 2006, Israel's Second Vice Prime Minister Shimon Peres said in an interview with Reuters that "the president of Iran should remember that Iran can also be wiped off the map," Army Radio reported.

Even though there is discrepencies in translation.

Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, translates the Persian phrase as:

The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[8]

According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian" and "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[1]

In November 2005 Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei, rejecting any attack on Israel, called for a referendum in Palestine:

We hold a fair and logical stance on the issue of Palestine. Several decades ago, Egyptian statesman Gamal Abdel Nasser, who was the most popular Arab personality, stated in his slogans that the Egyptians would throw the Jewish usurpers of Palestine into the sea. Some years later, Saddam Hussein, the most hated Arab figure, said that he would put half of the Palestinian land on fire. But we would not approve of either of these two remarks. We believe, according to our Islamic principles, that neither throwing the Jews into the sea nor putting the Palestinian land on fire is logical and reasonable. Our position is that the Palestinian people should regain their rights. Palestine belongs to Palestinians, and the fate of Palestine should also be determined by the Palestinian people. The issue of Palestine is a criterion for judging how truthful those claiming to support democracy and human rights are in their claims. The Islamic Republic of Iran has presented a fair and logical solution to this issue. We have suggested that all native Palestinians, whether they are Muslims, Christians or Jews, should be allowed to take part in a general referendum before the eyes of the world and decide on a Palestinian government. Any government that is the result of this referendum will be a legitimate government. [19]

Ahmadinejad himself has also repeatedly called for such solution.[20][21][22][23] Most recently in an interview with Time magazine:[24]

http://www.answers.com/topic/mahmoud-ahmadinejad-and-israel

[geoffrey]

I don't like the question. There are some situations (an immenient attack on another country from Iran), where I'd have no problem with a nuclear strike. Just for shits and giggles though, probably not in favour.

[Catchme]

Listen guys, it's all Israel's fault, no matter what.

Unless Harper, clearly speaks out, against any Israelis nuclear aggression, it means he is supportive of it. And indeed speaking out against it could actually slow things, but he has not done either, as of yet, and this is significant considering the USA military build up and anti-Iran rhetoric continuing to build.

If Harper makes a statement against Israel's "nuclear aggression" the rest of the western world would look like this:

The reason, Israel isn't talking about wiping out Iran, the Iranian's are talking about wiping out Israel but we'll ignore that for some reason.

Ah, but the rest of the world wouldn't be rolling their eyes. The rest of the world is in Munich discussing this, and Putin indeed spoke out strongly against this and drew the line.

And yes, Israel is talking about wiping Iran off the map, the quote is right in this thread. And Iran says they did not say that.