The truth about the Iran election

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/06/432920.html?c=on

 

Indymedia is completely overrun by cranks. Petras is a marxist crank that believes Jews control America.

Well done on your source material, mate.

 

So it never occurred to you, after reading a Pilger or Chomsky article, what an incredible coincidence it was that once again, John or Noam discovered that the diabolically evil west was completely 100% responsible for everything bad, and that they are the greatest criminals of all history.

I'll be you are suprised at the end of every Scooby Doo episode when it turns out the monster is some guy in a costume.

Really mate, so far you fit 100% the stereotype of the obsessively western hating leftist.

 

Well that's interesting, because guess what, my fist fits squarely in your ass, by an amazing feat of coincidence.

What do you think about that then, are you going to accuse me of being a homosexual now?

Let's get things right here, before you continue to cast judgment upon me.

I look at the world from a distance, but I watch closely. I read between the lines, and when I feel something that I see is correct, I agree with it. When I don't, I try to understand it. I don't attack it as though it has no right to exist because I don't get it.

Iran's democracy is shit, our democracy is shit, because neither is democracy.

Ahmedinejad might have pulled a fast one on this election, but don't you think that he might very well be doing it on purpose to show his indignation at the systematic bullshit that we violently coerce nations within his land to abide by? He does have a track history of doing and saying things to provoke a reaction, and can you blame him.

Who are we to tell another country that they cannot develop nuclear technology when we ourselves do.

The west invented nuclear technology, and we were the first to perform genocide using it. why the fuck should ANY other nation whoever they are take advice from us.

Ahmedinejad might not be democratically elected according to our system, but maybe he will stick to his word on what he is going to do whilst in power. Our democratcially elected governments promise us the earth and the stars before voting day, and then spend every day thereafter lying to us and oppressing us.

 

Correcting Iran's Nuclear Disinformation.

"Western governments don't agree with Iran possessing nuclear power… "

Quite the contrary. Iran 's international counterparts, led by the European Union and Russia , are offering to assist Iran in expanding its use of nuclear energy. Even the United States has agreed to this position once Iran has resolved the IAEA's outstanding questions and restored confidence that its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes.
In the Tehran declaration of 21 October 2003 agreed upon by Iran and the foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany (the E3) it is stated that the latter three "governments recognize the right of Iran to enjoy peaceful us of nuclear energy in accordance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."
In the Paris agreement of 15 November 2004 (IAEA-INFCIRC/637), it is stated again that "The E3/EU recognize Iran 's rights under the NPT exercised in conformity with its obligations under the Treaty, without discrimination. "

Iran is a signatory state of the NPT and has recently (as of 2006) resumed development of a uranium enrichment program. The Iranian government states its enrichment program is part of its civilian nuclear energy program. This is allowed under Article IV of the NPT. In 2005, the IAEA Board of Governors found Iran in noncompliance with its NPT safeguards agreement in an unusual non-consensus decision, after which the Security Council passed a resolution demanding that Iran suspend its enrichment


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#Iran

Correcting Iran's Nuclear Disinformation

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/

http://newsfeedresearcher.com/data/articles_w27/nuclear-amano-iaea.html

 

Not close enough.

 

Dum spiro spero


With Government permission...
« on: February 22, 2008, 10:37:01 »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning, citizen! The grandly titled Julian Le Grand, chairman of a ministerial advisory board called Health England, has a humdinger of an idea for you: smoking permits. He proposes a ban on the sale of tobacco to anyone who can't flash a licence at the cashier.

Good news for smokers: Le Grand reckons said licence should cost only £10. Bad news: he wants to make the application process as deliberately complex as possible. You'd have to fill out a lengthy form, attaching a photograph, proof of age and a fee, and send it all to a central Smoker's Permit processing centre and wait for your licence to come back, by which point, let's face it, you would have probably died. Oh, and the licence expires after a year, so you have to apply all over again each time it runs out.

Why leave it there? Why not make it expire every 24 hours, so you have to reapply each morning? Or include a Sudoku on the application form? Or force the tobacco companies to sell cigarettes inside complicated Japanese puzzle boxes? Or change the name of the brands each week, without publicising the change, while simultaneously making it illegal for a shop to sell you anything you haven't asked for by name, so you have to stand at the counter fishing for codewords for an hour?

Or here's a good one, Julian: make it a requirement for smokers to walk around with a broomhandle stuck through their sleeves, running behind the neck, so their arms are permanently splayed out, like a scarecrow's. To spark up under those conditions, they'd have to work together in pairs, flailing around in the outdoor smoking area like something out of It's a Knockout.

His paper, incidentally, also proposes "incentives for large companies to provide a daily 'exercise hour' for staff". Welcome to your future life: having struggled into work suffering withdrawal pangs because today's smoking licence didn't arrive in the post, you're forced to spend 60 minutes doing squat-thrusts in the car park. And each time you start crying, a man in a helmet comes round to gently remind you that it's all for your own good.

Through a loudhailer.

If that sounds like a nightmare, don't worry: you can still wriggle out of the squat-thrusts, provided you're carrying a valid Laziness Licence, whose application process involves climbing a ladder to reach the forms (stored at the top of a 200ft crane), ticking 900 boxes with a 7kg pencil, and finally posting it into a motorised mailbox that persistently runs away from you at speeds of up to 25mph. In other words, you still have freedom of choice. Provided you're carrying a valid Freedom of Choice Permit, that is.

Getting your hands on a Freedom of Choice Permit is pretty straightforward. The application form requires only your name and signature. Admittedly, you have to deliver it in person to the Freedom of Choice Licensing Agency, which is open only between 4.15am and 4.18am, and is based in an unmarked office in the Falklands, but nevertheless, thousands have already applied, if the queues are anything to go by. The current waiting time is a mere nine weeks, although you'd be advised to get there early and guard your place in line because there have been reports of disturbances.

Anyway, once you've got your Freedom of Choice Permit, you're free to do as you please, within reason, provided you notify the Central Scrutiniser six days in advance of any unapproved activity, quoting your 96-digit Freedom of Choice Permit code in full, which isn't printed anywhere on the permit itself, but is given to you once and only once, whispered quickly into your ear at the desk in the Falklands, by a man standing beneath a loudspeaker barking out other numbers at random.

The permit itself, incidentally, is shaped like a broomhandle, and is designed to be threaded through your sleeves at all times.
If you couldn't be bothered with all that, you will just have to do as you're told, which isn't that bad, to be honest. There's a compulsory exercise hour or five, and an approved list of foodstuffs, but that's about it. You will still have at least 10 minutes a day to do as you please, although we've just banned violent videogames, which are bad for your head, and there are one or two ideologies we'd rather you didn't discuss with friends or on the internet, which is why we're not issuing any Freedom of Speech Permits for the time being - although if you'd like to be notified when they're available, simply book yourself into one of our underground holding pens and remain there until your name is called, or not called, or time itself comes to an end. Whichever takes the longest.

Once upon a time, in between scrawling allegorical fables about lions and wardrobes, CS Lewis said something prescient. "Of all tyrannies," he wrote, "a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.

The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

You can nod your head in agreement if you like. Once you've got your Nodding Permit. Don't want you straining your neck, now, do we, citizen?

Credit: Charlie Brooker, The Guardian



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

What has that got to do with this thread?

 

fascist!

 

Troll.

 

Iran 'disqualifies' EU from talks


The EU is no longer qualified to take part in talks on Iran's nuclear programme, Iran's military chief says. Maj-Gen Hassan Firouzabadi, Iran's chief of staff, accused the EU of "interference" in riots which followed June's disputed presidential elections.


'Non-negotiable'
At their last talks, they offered Iran a package of incentives if it would stop its nuclear activities.
But Iran insists that its right to enrich uranium is non-negotiable.
In a separate development, officials in Tehran said President Ahmadinejad had cancelled his trip to an African Union summit in Libya.
Mr Ahmadinejad's office did not give any reason for the decision.

I can't connect the two????

 

You got a link for that Odon?

 

Actually I haven't got the faintest clue how to interpret that.

So closely that you haven't even bothered to look for evidence Iran's elections were rigged, even though you will debate the point for pages and pages (although ultimately admitting you don't actually care whether they were or not).

This is an absurd false equivalence. I don't see why you keep doing this.

I see so he represses his own citizens to 'express indignation' about things in other countries? WTF?

Yes I can. Can't you?

That's what the NPT says. Its not a "nuclear weapons for everybody" treaty.

Genocide? I don't think so.

The NPT isn't advice, its a treaty. And I'm not so filled with guilt and self loathing that I won't stand up and say no way some lunatic tyrannical Islamic state that hangs its own young girls for crimes against chastity, sponsors terrorism abroad and threatens to wipe neighboring countries off the map should be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

Or any system.

So you are saying that Iranians are lucky to have Ahmedinejad compared to our 'oppression'?

 

Well, if you weren't to count repeatedly asking for evidence in this forum, and subsquently not being offered any, then I guess I'm not looking hard enough.

Are you saying that the Hiroshima bomb wasn't genocide?

What about Isreal? Should they be allowed to have nuclear weapons? They have a long standing history of attacking neighbouring countries, and using cluster bombs. Can they be trusted to have WMDs?

Well let's put it this way. At least he doesn't stand for any bullshit from the yanks.

 

If doing nothing and demanding other people do your research for you is your idea of an impressive research effort, well, I'm not impressed. Seems to me that when you say you "watch closely" and "read between the lines" it means you do pretty much nothing and just assume reality fits your prejudices.

Yes

They have an even longer history of being invaded by neighboring countries. Keep in mind Israel was attacked by its neighbors with the explicit goal of wiping it out from existance, and that for decades its neighbors refused to accept even that it had a right to exist at all. Even today Hamas and Hizbollah refuse to acknowledge that the State of Israel has a right to exist within any borders, and continue to call for its destruction. Even Iran, which doesn't even border Israel, calls for it to be wiped off the map.

Israel does not deny its neighboring countries the right to exist, it does not call for their destruction.

So yes, I support Israel's maintenance of a nuclear deterrent.

But why be so evasive? "My opinion on Iran is that I oppose America". You clearly think that it is more important for Iran to hate America than for it to be democratic or free.

Classic knee jerk anti americanism.

 

I don't think Israel should exist.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8135203.stm

Shall I suggest the west imposes sanctions on China next, as a sort of prerequisite threat to military action, or are our yellow asses too scared?

 

Hmmm.... trying to change the subject again? Not a good sign.

 

YOU seem to prefer to focus on ME, rather than the issue at hand mate. You use every opportunity to stereotype me than contribute a solid argument, and now, once again, you are criticising me for supposedly changing the subject.

Should we only take action against rogue states that are largely muslim in popuation then? YOU answer that question.

Should we clamp down on Iran, who has not attacked a neighbouring country, and has invited the west to peaceful, diplomatic talks on the issues at hand, and leave Isreal and China to their own business, both countries who are violently occupying or attacking neighbouring countries on a regular basis?

This is called hypocrisy.

And you have a very distorted definition of "genocide".

 

Not at all. You keep trying to change the issue at hand because you would rather chew off some of your fingers than criticise Iran.

You didn't supposedly change the subject, you did change the subject, and its not the first time.

Was Serbia a muslim nation? No, they were a christian nation attacking muslims. We sided with the muslims.

They fund and support Hizbollah, Hamas, and Shiite insurgents in Iraq. All of these groups engage in terrorism against civilians.

We have been pursuing peaceful, diplomatic talks with Iran for years. Didn't you notice?

What neighboring country is China attacking on a regular basis?

What you are saying is that if a cop sees two muggers attacking two old ladies, unless he can stop both of them he shouldn't stop either. Because it would be hypocritical.

I think you do.