Don't be fooled: Assad is no friend to Syria's Christian minorities

you're more than welcome to put me on Ignore.

in fact, considering your constant offensive and trolling responses, I prefer it

 

You think that Iran threw Saleh out?

You sound like a Russian talking about Ukraine and the US.

The KSA has troops and mercenaries in Yemen, and they are supporting certain militias. The KSA is supporting militias in Syria as well.

In a sense, and from an American perspective, sure, I agree.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...a-guidance-patrols-womens-right-a7582206.html

"Relationships between non-Muslim men and Muslim women are also illegal in Iran and punishable by whipping (for the women), although few Westerners have been prosecuted.

Homosexuality, adultery and sex outside of marriage are also against Iranian law and can carry the death penalty, while access to Western women’s magazines and films is strictly controlled."

 

Done. Now you can whine for and against Israel with even fewer paying attention to your laughable, non-credible posts.

 

Don't you see? It's always the same with the far left; only allies of the US are to be attacked. iran is equal to (arguably FAR worse than KSA) - but to the far left it gets a pass, but anyone allied/friendly to the US HAS to be attacked with regard to facts or reality.

 

It's even worse than that, because it changes with time. The left has always said that right-wingers are far too critical of places like China, and once Chinese-American relations start to improve under Trump the left is suddenly concerned about American "moral leadership."

It's even more extreme when you talk about Russia. Romney calls Russia our greatest geopolitical foe and the left has a field day, and now they think that our president is a Russian spy.

No consistency.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houthi_takeover_in_Yemen

"Iran
The Houthis are from Yemen's large Shia minority, and Sunni opponents of the militant group have long accused them of close ties to Iran, the largest Shia-led state in the Middle East and a traditional rival of Saudi Arabia, Yemen's largest neighbor and ally.[80][81] The rise of Houthi power in Sana'a was interpreted by many analysts as a boon to Iranian influence in the region.[80][82][83] Speaking to Al Arabiya after the Houthi announcement that parliament would be dissolved and a set of ruling councils formed to govern Yemen, one opposition politician compared the takeover to the Iranian Revolution and called it "an extension of the Iranian project".[84] Reuters quoted an unnamed "senior Iranian official" in December 2014 as saying that the Iranian Quds Force had a "few hundred" military personnel in Yemen training Houthi fighters.[85] White House spokesman Josh Earnest said in January 2015 it was unclear whether Iran was "exerting command and control" over the Houthis, although he described the U.S. government as "concerned" about the reported ties between them.[86] The following month, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Iran "contributed" to the Houthi takeover and the collapse of the Yemeni government.[87]"

 

Okay, the instability started with the ouster of Saleh, which wasn't done by "the Houthis" as a group, and certainly not with Iranian insistence. This same Saleh, by the way, is now working WITH the Houthis.

 

Like the lebanese are, under threat of violence and murder. I just can't abide by people who attack the US for 1953, while they try to explain away iran's far, far worse terrorism, violence, murder, slaughter, oppression, across the mideast. Special hatred for idiots who proclaim how "lebanon welcomed iran's formation of hezbollah" or that "iran has a 'right' to help their fellow shia, 'oppressed' as they are, wherever they want to. Such utter trash.

 

Simply not true. He left the country. He's working with them because he wants to regain power. Again, it wasn't Houthis that threw him out to begin with.

I don't really see the point in moralizing about it all. Of course the Iranians distrust us, and given that fact it makes sense that they'll do everything they can to scramble towards a better position to fight our influence.

Just like the US with 1953, the fact that Iran is benefitting from the Yemeni Revolution doesn't imply that Iran's actions were either necessary or sufficient for causing it.

 

They are violating multiple UNSC resolutions supplying arms abroad in and of itself, and by interfering with the Yemen civil war, they are violating other international laws. They cannot complain about anything the US/KSA is doing while they continue to arm terrorist groups/non-state actors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Iran

http://www.un.org/en/sc/2231/restrictions-arms.shtml

What is the restriction on arms-related transfers to Iran?
Paragraph 5 of Annex B of resolution 2231 (2015) stipulates that all States may participate in and permit, provided that the Security Council decides in advance on a case-by-case basis to approve:

• the supply, sale or transfer directly or indirectly from or through their territories, or by their nationals or individuals subject to their jurisdiction, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in their territories, to Iran, or for the use in or benefit of Iran, of any battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large calibre artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles or missile systems, as defined for the purpose of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, or related materiel, including spare parts, and
• the provision to Iran by their nationals or from or through their territories of technical training, financial resources or services, advice, other services or assistance related to the supply, sale, transfer, manufacture, maintenance, or use of arms and related materiel described above.

What is the restriction on arms-related transfers from Iran?
Paragraph 6 (b) of Annex B of resolution 2231 (2015) further stipulates that all States are to take the necessary measures to prevent, except as decided otherwise by the Security Council in advance on a case-by-case basis, the supply, sale, or transfer of arms or related materiel from Iran by their nationals or using their flag vessels or aircraft and whether or not originating in the territory of Iran.

 

International law, as it stands, is only a way for countries to complain about countries they don't like, and for countries to take actions against others with some form of legitimacy. Breaking international law isn't exactly some moral no-no.

If you're just saying that Iran doesn't have a lot of moral standing from which to criticize us then I'd agree, it just doesn't matter. We're going to criticize them, they're going to criticize us. I wouldn't take those words too seriously.

 

Israel violates international law on a daily basis.

with no consequences

 

I defend Israel against claims that are silly, but criticise Israel when deserved.

 

I will busy today, so I like to wrap up what I have to say on the discussion relating to Iran and morality like offenses as follows:

1- Iran's laws on so-called "morality offenses" are best understood this way: a- to pretend to be applying Islamic strictures, these laws will contain rather draconian and harsh provisions; b- at the same time, to make sure these draconian and harsh measures aren't in fact applied, and to even make sure that these offenses are generally left to be handled at the societal level, Iranian laws also include what are pretty much impossible conditions for the application of these harsh and draconian measures and even for proof of these offenses. Iranian laws also include provisions that try to deter people coming forward to claiming such offenses in the first, place, prescribing serious punishment for anyone who accuses someone else of things like adultery or sodomy without having several witnesses who are willing to swear having actually witnessed the sexual acts in question. This is the compromise Iran has found between its competing voices on these subjects.

2- The above, namely having one set of laws and rules on the surface and at the same time impossible conditions for their application, applies in a lot of arenas in Iran, which then creates a very confusing picture of Iran that ends up making Iran so different for those who visit the country compared to what they expected. A as an example, Iran outlaws consumption of alcohol but funds numerous centers for treatment of alcoholism and has a higher consumption of alcohol than anywhere else in the region. And its drinking and driving rules, if anything, are too lax compared to what you have elsewhere. The inconsistency between rules which are often observed mostly in the breach and actual societal conditions, does give fodder to those who want to paint a false picture of Iran to do so, but the reality of the society is easy to discover just googling on what people who have actually been to Iran in the past 10-15 years have seen and described.

The are serious issues and differences between Iran and its allies on the one hand, and the US and its allies on the other hand. Iran's principal allies are Hezbollah, Bashar Assad in Syria and some of the Shia groups and parties in Iraq. Everyone else in the world, with a few exceptions here and there (notably Russia and China), are basically American allies and in many cases American surrogates. In this region, America's principal allies are Israel and Wahhabi Arabia, but everyone else is to varying degrees allied with the US as well. Considering America's overwhelming military and economic superiority compared to Iran, this makes for a rather uneven contest with Iran akin to a kid who wants to stand up to some giant bully. But sometimes, like what we saw in the "Home Alone" comedy movies, Iran gets away with it. I root for this kid, not because he is perfect, but because I don't like bullies.

 

Or because you're Iranian. You have a certain view of the world in which the United States is a malicious, domineering monolith that I really do believe makes cooperation between our countries difficult. If people like you, who I believe want a better future for your people and have some understanding of what that means, oppose the political parties pushing for that future because you don't trust the US, I really believe that you're moving down a road that ends in North Korea. Just consider the possibility that the people running American foreign policy are not in the pocket of the Jews or the Saudis or the defense industry or whatever you believe, and try to see some plausible scenario in which American leadership is complicated and flawed but full of people who really do believe that they're making the best choices they can for their country. You don't have to believe this, just everytime you think about an issue related to American foreign policy try and see it from that perspective.

And I want to be clear that I'm not blaming Iranian hardliners for bad relations between our countries. My country is a democratic country in which a frightening proportion of the population is totally ignorant about foreign policy, about the Islamic world, and about Iranians and Shia Islam. That's a big, big problem (great, I'm talking like Trump now). But the conspiracy theories that permeate American politics really do make it all difficult to understand. The "Evil Empire run by and for the wealthy" is such an enticing Hollywood-view of reality that makes it so difficult for people to cut through the ignorance and make some damned headway.

Gonna stop myself there, I'm ranting.

 

I have to run, but frankly on balance, I felt America was a country that Iran could easily deal with for a long time, particularly when America's principal preoccupation was in containing the Soviet Union. But unlike you, I don't think PNAC, the neocon agendas, and the alliances between Israel, the US military industrial complex, and Wahhabi Arabia ever since circa 2000 period, are 'conspiracy theory'. They have become the cornerstone of US foreign policy. And that does leave people like me facing very bad choices.

 

WTFF are you to discuss Israel? iran does not even share a border, its 1,000 miles away. The only reason iran even involves itself with the pal arabs is to use Israel as a diversion for the uneducated sunni masses from the mass slaughter of sunnis and terrorism against them by iran and its proxy armies.

As for the so-called neo-con agenda, iran attacked the US embassy and murdered 241 US marines plus 85 US diplomats DECADES before any so-called "neocons" of the last 15 years were in office, so spare us your BS. Should I get into how iran helped maim or kill thousands of american soldiers in iraq? More americans have been killed by iran than any other country the US was not in a hot war with. After all of that crap, and the khobar towers and USS Cole attacks, you are fortunate iran wasn't turned into a parking lot.

iran is a theocratic dictatorship whose constitution calls for the export of its diseased "revolution", and has been threatening its neighbors - and acting upon those threats - since 1980.

Maybe when the entire planet outside of the bottom-feeding filth like russia, china and NK are against you, maybe YOU are the problem, and not the other way around.

 

Okay, so lets be clear about what we mean here. The neocon agenda, I think, truly is dead. Neocon doesn't just mean "hawkish", neoconservatism carried the belief that all we had to do, all we had to do, was make an example in the Arab world. They believed that if we could turn Iraq into a well-ordered, prosperous democracy that the entire Middle East would see the clear path before them. Are you convinced that either Israel or the Saudis were happy with the idea of an American invasion of Iraq? Why would they see this is a preferable state of affairs?

 

Of course not. The Ayatollahs do.

So far Iran backs armed factions in four countries: Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, Shia militias in Iraq, the Houthi rebels in Yemen. And let's not forget Hamas. Please explain why.

The elections in Gaza were not held under Israeli occupation. The PA ruled Gaza at the time. There were no Israeli boots on the ground.

Hamas didn't choose the opposite side in the Syrian civil war. It found itself at the opposite side when Assad's army bombed and butchered Palestinians in the Syrian refugee camps.

I find it very hard to believe that Hamas ever had "friendly inclinations" towards Iran. They're Muslim Brotherhood, bent on establishing a Sunni Islamic Caliphate worldwide.

I don't have the time to address the rest of your post. I'll just point out that Iran and its Syrian and Iraqi allies have cynically used ISIS according to the very old yet still working principle "divide and conquer". In this particular case the conquering is mainly of minds and hearts, not territory, because ISIS makes even Assad look good. I'm not saying that Iran created ISIS, just that they helped it grow through inaction and a little push here and there (like abandoning entire army bases with the weapons intact for ISIS to find and use).

Israel is opposed to the ultra-religious regime in Iran because it is anti-anyone who can accept the legitimacy of an ideology that says that the golden era of the Islamic Caliphate will not come until all the Jews have been killed by Muslims. It's in their sacred writings.

All the talk about ethnic cleansing and land stealing is just meant to make the genocidal intentions more palatable to western sensibilities.

 

Although I don't want to get stuck in semantics, the neocon agenda was by no means restricted to Iraq and what they claimed or wished to accomplish there. Its basic initial blue print is found in the following:

1- Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
2- Project for a New American Century

But, of course, any agenda or plan is revised and updated and the neocon agenda has gone through similar revisions. And a group that includes enough people will find divisions within its ranks overtime. Nonetheless, to avoid a needless semantic discussion, if you prefer, imagne that when I say "neocon" I am referring to supporters of the right wing, formerly Likud, wing in Israeli politics in the US and those who do their bidding through AIPAC, in alliance with the US military industrial complex and affiliated politicians (mainly Republicans but also a good many Democrats) who have voted for the same agendas (e.g., Iraq war, opposition to the Iran nuclear deal, etc).

 

Your beliefs and mine are too far apart to hope to make any progress, but simply rest assured that there no part of me that is interested in seeing Jews killed by Muslims or anyone else. Indeed, even though I am stridently anti-Israeli as that state has been conceived and has evolved, I actually believe a properly constituted Israel (within the confederation like arrangement I have alluded to in the past and stripped of the kind of ideologies that justify ethnic cleansing and other such practices) could be a natural ally of Iran in the region.

 

The simplistic, childlike propaganda perspective flows through you like water; no ability to parse details (as your paragraph below shows, just a reference to some policy paper as if the entire american foreign policy for 2 decades can be consolidated to one document.

Which you cannot even define or describe when asked.

My six year old cousin has a more nuanced understanding of the US and mideast. Slogans and simplistic "oh that horrible AIPAC", the "Military Industrial Complex!"...its like reading Archie comics' take on World Affairs.

To people like this, anyone who supports Israel and despises iran for being the cancer that it is MUST be a "neocon," a label you cannot even define. Pathetic.

 

Because you support a terrorist regime, and most humans don't.

No, you just embrace policies, regimes and terrorist groups that will lead to their mass murder.

So jews can't have sovereignty, but persians can? Pathetic.

LOL, iran mistreats its minorities horribly, and you think you can demand how other countries treat theirs?

 

A good place to begin your education on the "necons" would be reading this article which appeared before the Iraq war in Counterpunch. It was written by two former CIA analyst, incidentally. It is a rather comprehensive account of the neocons, their rise, their policies and writings and agenda.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2002/12/13/bush-s-dual-loyalties/
Bush’s Dual Loyalties