Iran's leader itching for a fight?

[bigred]

I'd just dismiss him as a warped nut, except he's a dangerous warped nut:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/04/16/iran.sept11.ap/index.html

What really gets me is this:

Although Iran has condemned the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the campaigns toppled the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, two regional threats to Iran.

:confused:

[Fiona]

What is confusing you ?

[Georg]

What is confusing you ?


Although Iran has condemned the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the campaigns toppled the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, two regional threats to Iran.

:confused:

I guess it´s the bolded parts.
They´ve never been friends. Different brands of insanity (Sunnis/schiits).

[Georg]

double post

[Oliver]

Once Ahmadinejad caused half as much deaths as Bush, I will consider him as a threat.

In this light, to say he's a dangerous man while Bush isn't, is hypocrisy - at least.

[Fiona]

I do not think the internal differences are all that relevant to the Islamic world in comparison to the threat they perceive from the West. Not that I have any great knowledge of the matter, but so far as I have been led to believe they subscribe to the notion of ummah. Why would the fact that they are not friends matter?

[kiwimac]

Tell me,

Iran has attacked who?

[Oliver]

Tell me,

Iran has attacked who?


No one. Quite the opposite: They liberated themselves after America installed a pro-American Dictator. That's bothering the US-Government for decades now, especially because their interest to control the oil-flow to keep the US-economy going. Sorry, I take that back: "Spread Democracy and Freedom".

So they tried several tactics to topple the Government - among that: Arming Saddam [teh Evildoer] with ingridients for WMD's and a huge pile of weapons so that Saddam would invade Iran in US-Interest:

"President Ronald Reagan decided that the United States "could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran", and that the United States "would do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran."[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#cite_note-22)[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#cite_note-FAIR-23) " Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#The_Tanker_War_and_U.S._support_for_Iraq)

Oh, did I mention that the Iran-Iraq war in the eighties caused another million deaths?

So everybody imagine the Ricola slogan (http://www.ricola.com/?cc=101) and sing with me:

Hypocrisyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

[Georg]

I do not think the internal differences are all that relevant to the Islamic world in comparison to the threat they perceive from the West. Not that I have any great knowledge of the matter, but so far as I have been led to believe they subscribe to the notion of ummah. Why would the fact that they are not friends matter?



The Taliban imposed an extremely repressive, sectarian Islamic regime on the Afghan people, barring women from work and education and even killing Shiite Muslims of the Hazari minority.

Iran is implacably hostile to the Taliban over that movement's extremist theology and over its killing of Afghan Shiite Muslims. In 1999, Iran almost went to war against the Taliban after its militia killed eight Iranian diplomats and a journalist after capturing a predominantly Shiite town

both from here. (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,175372,00.html)

I even read somewhere that Iranians have been fighting alongside with Americans during the overthrow of the Taliban after 9/11. Don´t remember if this was reliable information though. Would be interesting, wouldn´t it?

ETA: Iran helped overthrow Taliban, candidate says (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-06-09-iran-taliban_x.htm)

Haven´t the al quaida guys (sunni) been killing schiits in Iraq for the reason of... being schiits?

[Oliver]

State Sponsored Terrorism provided by the US:

Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php

[Normal Dude]

Hey, he doesn' like Bush! He must be an OK guy! :rolleyes:

[Fiona]

@ Georg. I still don't see what this has to do with it. If an Islamic country invaded a Western one you didn't happen to like do you think it impossible you would shelve your differences till the external threat was met? I am not saying you see the islamic world that way, I do not know, but you see the point?

[Pardalis]

State Sponsored Terrorism provided by the US

How is this relevant to the claims of Ahmadinejad in the OP?

And take that finger out of your nose.

[godless dave]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not "Iran's leader". He is the head of state. He has some power in domestic politics but virtually none in foreign policy, and none at all in military or security affairs.

[Oliver]

How is this relevant to the claims of Ahmadinejad in the OP?

And take that finger out of your nose.


It is relevant in a sense that Ahmadinejad isn't "teh devil himself" and that the Hawks love to have the chance to use him to portray a distorted image of iran thanks to Ahmadinejad's rhetoric.

The point is that even if he never had become Iran's president, the Hawks would blame Iran for other things or persons to be "teh evil state of Satan".

And you're actually falling for the White House propaganda:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b1/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad.ogg) (help (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_help)·info (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad.ogg))[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#cite_note-transliterations-0) (born October 28 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_28), 1956 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956))[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#cite_note-birth-1) is the sixth and current President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Iran) of the Islamic Republic of Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Republic_of_Iran). He became president on August 6 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_6), 2005 > SOURCE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad)

"Axis of evil" was a term used by United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush) in his State of the Union Address (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_Union_Address) on January 29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_29), 2002 in order to describe governments that he accused of helping terrorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism) and seeking weapons of mass destruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_mass_destruction). Bush's "axis of evil" includes Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran), Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq), and North Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea) (darker red). "Beyond the Axis of Evil" includes Cuba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba), Libya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya), and Syria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria) (orange). > SOURCE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil)


See? Iran was "Teh Evil" all the time - since the Iranian revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_revolution) in 1979. The whinery about Ahmadinejad is nearly irrelevant from the foreign policy makers point of view.

However - since Iran didn't invade any other country in contrast to America supporting Iraq in doing so, it's safe to assume that they're NOT! the troublemakers in the middle east.

Get it? :confused:

[WildCat]

However - since Iran didn't invade any other country in contrast to America supporting Iraq in doing so, it's safe to assume that they're NOT! the troublemakers in the middle east.
So who is arming and training Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Shiite militias in Iraq?

[dudalb]

Hey, he doesn' like Bush! He must be an OK guy! :rolleyes:

That is another symptom of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

[MarkCorrigan]

So who is arming and training Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Shiite militias in Iraq?

Not Ahmadinejad.

The Iranian government, who while ol' Mahmood might like and agree with on this issue, he does not control.

It would be more accurate to state it is the Council of Guardians.

(Time until this post is taken as "supporting the terrorists/Iran 3....2....1......)

[Pardalis]

It is relevant in a sense that Ahmadinejad isn't "teh devil himself" and that the Hawks love to have the chance to use him to portray a distorted image of iran thanks to Ahmadinejad's rhetoric.

The point is that even if he never had become Iran's president, the Hawks would blame Iran for other things or persons to be "teh evil state of Satan".

And you're actually falling for the White House propaganda:




See? Iran was "Teh Evil" all the time - since the Iranian revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_revolution) in 1979. The whinery about Ahmadinejad is nearly irrelevant from the foreign policy makers point of view.

However - since Iran didn't invade any other country in contrast to America supporting Iraq in doing so, it's safe to assume that they're NOT! the troublemakers in the middle east.

Get it? :confused:

Are you going to answer my question anytime soon?

[Oliver]

So who is arming and training Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Shiite militias in Iraq?


How is this relevant since America threatened to undermine Iran's sovereignty on many occasions supporting Terrorists whenever they are useful idiots.

Do you think the US wouldn't support Hamas or Hezbollah in case of a shared enemy? :confused: ... Are you naive? :


1 General allegations against the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_Un ited_States#General_allegations_against_the_US)
1.1 State terrorism and propaganda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_Un ited_States#State_terrorism_and_propaganda)
2 Specific allegations against the US by region (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_Un ited_States#Specific_allegations_against_the_US_by _region)
2.1 Cuba (1956-present) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_Un ited_States#Cuba_.281956-present.29)
2.1.1 Operation Mongoose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_Un ited_States#Operation_Mongoose)
2.1.2 Operation Northwoods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_Un ited_States#Operation_Northwoods)
2.1.3 Allegations of harboring terrorists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_Un ited_States#Allegations_of_harboring_terrorists)
2.1.4 Luis Posada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_Un ited_States#Luis_Posada)
2.2 Nicaragua (1979-90) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_Un ited_States#Nicaragua_.281979-90.29)
2.2.1 Nicaragua vs. United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_Un ited_States#Nicaragua_vs._United_States)
2.3 Guatemala (1954-96) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_Un ited_States#Guatemala_.281954-96.29)
2.3.1 Background (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_Un ited_States#Background)
2.4 School of the Americas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_Un ited_States#School_of_the_Americas)
2.5 El Salvador (1980-92) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_Un ited_States#El_Salvador_.281980-92.29)
2.6 Iran (1979-present) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_Un ited_States#Iran_.281979-present.29)
2.6.1 Jundullah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_Un ited_States#Jundullah)
2.6.2 People's Mujahedin of Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_Un ited_States#People.27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran)
2.7 Iraq (1992-95) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_Un ited_States#Iraq_.281992-95.29)
2.8 Lebanon (1985) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_Un ited_States#Lebanon_.281985.29)
2.9 The Philippines (1990s-present) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_Un ited_States#The_Philippines_.281990s-present.29)
2.9.1 US involvement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_Un ited_States#US_involvement)
And Hamas and Hezbollah remain a problem for Israel - not America.

Are you implying that Israel is the major contributor to hostillity towards Iran and Iraq?

Funny thing is: Israel and America could've brought peace to the region a long time ago. Unfortunately, both countries rather waste the money in threatening or invade Israels neighbors and to arm Israel than spend it on using the money to build a fair place for people on both sides of the issue.

Anyway: Let me watch the Democratic Debate now. :)

[Pardalis]

Hard to believe you're the same person who wrote this:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3612808&postcount=104

Or are you?

[Oliver]

Are you going to answer my question anytime soon?


I thought I answered it already.

Concerning the OP: Yep, Ahmadinejad is "itching for a fight" since he's tweaking America's and Israel's Nose all the time - well knowing that America can't do anything under current conditions. Plus knowing that Israel can't do something, either - without drawing more negative attention in contrast to the world's hope for peace without violence down there.

Maybe Iran is even hoping that America would intervene militarily - just to kick off a real "insurgence" throughout the middle east.

Now let me watch the Obama/Hillary debate, dammit! :p

[Oliver]

Hard to believe you're the same person who wrote this:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3612808&postcount=104

Or are you?


Yes, I wrote this. What's wrong with it? :confused:

[Pardalis]

I thought I answered it already.

Nope, it still doesn't answer my question.

Concerning the OP: Yep, Ahmadinejad is "itching for a fight" since he's tweaking America's and Israel's Nose all the time - well knowing that America can't do anything under current conditions. Plus knowing that Israel can't do something, either - without drawing more negative attention in contrast to the world's hope for peace without violence down there.

Maybe Iran is even hoping that America would intervene militarily - just to kick off a real "insurgence" throughout the middle east.

Now let me watch the Obama/Hillary debate, dammit! :p

Still irrelevant to my question. Take your time, it's really not that difficult of a question.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Hint, Oliver. We're discussing Iran's leader.

Bringing Bush in is non-germane and quite possibly a Rule 11/4 violation

[Oliver]

Nope, it still doesn't answer my question.

Still irrelevant to my question. Take your time, it's really not that difficult of a question.


This question? :

"State Sponsored Terrorism provided by the US""How is this relevant to the claims of Ahmadinejad in the OP?"
It is relevant in a sense that while the OP assumes that Ahmadinejad is "itchy for a fight", the Bushies are "itchy for a fight" as well. There is no real difference between both sides concerning the "itching question".

And concerning the OP's author about Iraq: Yes, it's true. Getting rid of Saddam was a gift for Iran. I guess they were laughing their asses off when they saw Saddam's hanging.

But that's old news - I have no Idea why Bigred stated that "this really got me".

[Pardalis]

Yes, I wrote this. What's wrong with it? :confused:

Nothing much, I just find it peculiar that in that post you answered the questions thoroughly and with great coherence, while here you can barely answer a straight-forward question or remain on topic.

Just strange is all.

[bigred]

Once Ahmadinejad caused half as much deaths as Bush, I will consider him as a threat.

In this light, to say he's a dangerous man while Bush isn't, is hypocrisy - at least.
Then don't say it.

I do not think the internal differences are all that relevant to the Islamic world in comparison to the threat they perceive from the West. Not that I have any great knowledge of the matter, but so far as I have been led to believe they subscribe to the notion of ummah. Why would the fact that they are not friends matter?
er it appeared to matter enough to wage a pretty darn bloody war (said conservatively to have cost over a million lives) in the 80s. Just because they're both Muslim doesn't exactly mean they're chummy, and whether they hate us more than the other doesn't really matter.

[WildCat]

How is this relevant since America threatened to undermine Iran's sovereignty on many occasions supporting Terrorists whenever they are useful idiots.

Do you think the US wouldn't support Hamas or Hezbollah in case of a shared enemy? :confused: ... Are you naive? :
So you support the US in those ventures, yes?

And Hamas and Hezbollah remain a problem for Israel - not America.
And Iran is our problem, not Germany's. So why are your undies in a knot?


Are you implying that Israel is the major contributor to hostillity towards Iran and Iraq?
No, Iran and Iraq are/were respectively the major contributors for US hostility towards them.

Funny thing is: Israel and America could've brought peace to the region a long time ago.
Really? How? A Nobel Prize awaits Oliver, don't hold back!

Unfortunately, both countries rather waste the money in threatening or invade Israels neighbors and to arm Israel than spend it on using the money to build a fair place for people on both sides of the issue.
Are you talking about the same people that refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist, and whose vow to destroy it in their charters?

(wonders if The Fool will chime in with his silly claim that the Palestinians actually did recognize Israel's right to exist, but have simply forgotten to amend their charter to reflect that)

[Elind]

Tell me,

Iran has attacked who?

Well, gee wiz, I know that one. Iraq comes to mind, but of course that depends on whether you believe one nutcase or the other.

Then there could be what happens tomorrow (if you actually take people at their word) in Israel.

[Elind]

How is this relevant since America threatened to undermine Iran's sovereignty on many occasions supporting Terrorists whenever they are useful idiots.

Do you think the US wouldn't support Hamas or Hezbollah in case of a shared enemy? :confused: ... Are you naive? :

1 General allegations against the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_Un ited_States#General_allegations_against_the_US)

Why does your main thrust rely on words that start with the word "allegations"? Surely you can come up with something that has more oomph to it than that?

[The Atheist]

Tell me,

Iran has attacked who?

I believe they've attacked the same number of countries as Afghanistan, and in the 10 years prior to invasion, Iraq also.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not "Iran's leader". He is the head of state. He has some power in domestic politics but virtually none in foreign policy, and none at all in military or security affairs.

This is an extremely disingenuous position.

I agree that he has little, if any sway and say in Teheran, but he is clearly the mouthpiece of those in power.

Unless you think that Ahmedinejad is a rebel against the theocracy, it's quite silly to suggest that his words don't reflect the prevailing feeling of the council. People get offed for that kind of thing in Iran, and in a President, it would be especially galling.

(Time until this post is taken as "supporting the terrorists/Iran 3....2....1......)

Looks like the warning saved you. Smart move.

[Zep]

Umm, quick interjection: To whom is Ahmadinejad addressing his anti-US comments?

[gtc]

Oliver.

[Fiona]

er it appeared to matter enough to wage a pretty darn bloody war (said conservatively to have cost over a million lives) in the 80s. Just because they're both Muslim doesn't exactly mean they're chummy, and whether they hate us more than the other doesn't really matter.


Yes they had a big war. It was not wholly private but let us not go there. I do not think that has anything at all to do with their response to a perceived common external threat. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. I really don't see why that is hard to understand

[bigred]

Since that perceived common external threat is beating up on another, you would think he would exercise a little more restraint to the former vs doing the opposite and trying to antagonize. In fact antagonizing us makes little sense regardless. I really don't see why that is hard to understand...

[Pardalis]

This question? :

Yes

It is relevant in a sense that while the OP assumes that Ahmadinejad is "itchy for a fight", the Bushies are "itchy for a fight" as well. There is no real difference between both sides concerning the "itching question".


Still doesn't answer my question. Boy, is it really that hard?

[Fiona]

Since that perceived common external threat is beating up on another, you would think he would exercise a little more restraint to the former vs doing the opposite and trying to antagonize. In fact antagonizing us makes little sense regardless. I really don't see why that is hard to understand...

You are surprised that some people do not think it wise to appease a bully who has already said they are next?

[Georg]

@ Georg. I still don't see what this has to do with it. If an Islamic country invaded a Western one you didn't happen to like do you think it impossible you would shelve your differences till the external threat was met?


I´m quite sure the western countries would shelve their differences til the external threat was met. And I certainly hope so!

I am not saying you see the islamic world that way, I do not know, but you see the point?


I think I see your point, but those countries/groups/terrorists seem to see it different. I was only the messenger......... :)
My main goal was not to express an opinion. What I tried was to give an explanation to the OP, to the question I assumed he had (you were not sure either), with the quotes I cited.

As we have seen or still see with al quaida in Iraq, it does not have to be an either/or decision about whom they are fighting against or whom they fight first. As far as I´m informed, al quaida murdered schiit civilians and fought the coalition troups at the same time.
That, and the other example of Iranians fighting alongside Americans, the non-islamic "invaders" (the external threat in your words) in Afghanistan, seem to be evidence that the ummah-idea isn´t on top of their priority list.
If that does not answer your questions, I´m afraid I did not understand them and politely ask for clarification.

[Cuddles]

Oliver, you have been repeatedly warned about derailing threads with your opinions on America. Now that you are back, do not start again.

[simonmaal]

It's probably a simple case of them perceiving the US as a bigger threat than their local rivals. During the Muslim invasions of Europe, European nations did put aside their differences in the face of a common enemy. Once the common enemy was vanquished, it was back to good old enmity again.

A similar situation exists in the Middle East today, fuelled by the same type of religious zealotry.

[Fiona]

What simonmaal said :)

[bigred]

You are surprised that some people do not think it wise to appease a bully who has already said they are next?
I don't understand why you're having such a hard time w/this but I'll try one more time:

I am surprised that this one person in particular thinks it wise to antagonize someone who a) is helping knock down another enemy w/o him having to lift a finger and b) (for the sake of argument) "said they are next." I think it's pretty stupid, in fact.

[Fiona]

So you think it is wrong to oppose bullies so long as they are stealing someone else's dinner money?

[bigred]

Yes that's what I'm saying.

:rolleyes:

[Fiona]

I am glad that is cleared up ;)

[Elind]

So you think it is wrong to oppose bullies so long as they are stealing someone else's dinner money?

I had to go back a ways to understand what the hell you were saying, just because it seemed so ambiguous. You think the US is the Bully stealing someone else's dinner?

If I got that right, whose dinner, and what's on the menu?

[Fiona]

I do not know enough about it to have an opinion. I think that is the view of many in the moslem world. I think that aerial photography does tend to confirm that the aggressors are the UK and the US since they are the people who have soldiers in someone else's country. My only point here is that I do not find it odd if someone chooses to oppose what they see as an aggressor, even if the aggression is directed to someone they do not like:especially if they consider that aggressor will turn on them next. And I do not find it surprising that some people do not refrain from doing this because the aggressor is bigger than them. In fact in some circumstances I find that admirable.

I am sorry if you thought I had something more profound to say: I was only trying to help some of the posters here to understand why the fact that Iran and Iraq are enemies does not make the statements referred to in the opening post incomprehensible. I did not do a very good job of it, but there you are :)

[Elind]

Don't apologize for not being profound. It's obvious you can't do that.

[bigred]

No I see what you're saying, but I did not say or mean to imply his remarks were incomprehensible; curious or foolish might be a better description.

And it's not the opposition itself I'm speaking of per se, but what and how he's vocalizing it. We have not been agressive to Iran (some would say it's a matter of time, but given the depth of our involvement in Iraq, the considerable and growing dissent towards it, and IMO the impending election of Obama, I seriously doubt we will), but there has been talk/innuendo - so on the reasonable assumption that said aggression is something he does not want to happen, and add to it that this potential aggressor is also chipping away at another enemy - why poke that aggressor in the ribs? Macho bravado? Religious fervor maybe? From a pure logic/strategic/political standpoint, it makes no sense to me.