Iran's foreign minister explains international law to Senate Republicans

Actually,... Islamic republic of Iran hasn't attacked anybody, so you mentioning they are going for an empire is just weird. Do note the US paid the Iranian army to make a couple vs its democratically elected government, and got the Shah installed. A dictator that tortured it's own people with his reign of terror. That formed the reaction of it's people to root out the dictatorship, and the rightfully attack of the US embassy where the terror on their land originated from.

And basically, the US did the same thing in Iraq. It also backfired.

- - - Updated - - -

AL Qaeda walk overs.
duh

 

Sorry to pee on your Iran is great parade but they are sponsoring attacks all over the ME

The people of Iran are the most pro western in the region and would love to get rid of the leaders you like so much.

They tried not long ago and were slaughtered in the streets.

The Iraq war was won in 2006-2007 when the Sunni got tired of their people being killed and terrorized ... by groups supported by Iran.

History isn't exactly your strong point ... is it.

 

I'm getting a kick out of your posts ... please keep it up ... please.

 

And Obama wants to make a deal with them.

 

I don’t know what is scarier, Obama, Iran, “liberals,” or Progressive Libertarians.

“I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with 'the stroke of a pen,' as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law. [Zarif]”

Let’s face facts:

“These member of the Senate did not engage in negotiations with the political leadership of Iran but they did attempt to ‘influence’ those leaders by falsely implying that any agreement with President Obama could be null and void. This was a clear violation of the US Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and the statutory laws of the United States.” (Shiva_TD) http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=399881&p=1064830586#post1064830586

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 191:

..."In the name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful (This letter is) from Muhammad, the slave of Allah, and His Apostle, to Barack Hussein Obama II, the Ruler of the United States. Peace be upon the followers of guidance. Now then, I invite you to Islam (i.e. surrender to Allah), embrace Islam and you will be safe; embrace Islam and Allah will bestow on you a double reward. But if you reject this invitation of Islam, you shall be responsible for misguiding the peasants (i.e. your nation). O people of the Scriptures! Come to a word common to you and us and you, that we worship. None but Allah, and that we associate nothing in worship with Him; and that none of us shall take others as Lords besides Allah. Then if they turn away, say: Bear witness that we are (they who have surrendered (unto Him)..(3.64)"...

With Shiva_TD “Progressive Libertarian” logic, the phrase “Obamanation of Desolation,” acquires its Biblical meaning.

 

I agree with you about Obama and liberals. But not about Islam.

 

You might follow a moderate course which the Koran mentions some Christians do. Who's Islam? The Christians who came to my door today have a different one. I have never met this Islam, but I did talk to the one in August 2001, who asked for forgiveness for what they were about to do, the word "they" being significant, which we didn't understand then, and then she, it, they never posted again after...

 

The entire Iran is evil and a sponsor of terrorism, all comes down to the humiliation of the US/UK that their coup in Iran to get their cheap resources while their population gets tortured by their puppet, ... backfired. Do note it was the US/UK who supported Bin Laden to make attacks all over the ME and not Iran. Do note it was the US/UK who supported Saddam Hussein to make attacks, and not Iran.

History isn't exactly your strong point ... is it.

It's actually some living Iranian legend of a general who is leading the Iraqi's and Kurds in Iraq with Iranian weapons. That is because Iraq and the Kurds got nobody with experience themselves... since the US got rid of them. Current affairs is also not your strong point.

 

History is indeed my strong point.

Your diatribe above filled with BS you have no hope of defending is proof you have no idea what you're talking about.

Iran is fighting ISIS because they threaten Iran's dominance in the region ... they don't want anyone else establishing their caliphate except for Shia Persians.

The Kurd were fighting and beating ISIS before Iran got deeply involved ... where did you come up with that one?

The US did not "get rid" of Iraq's competent commanders ... they were replaced by the Iraqi gummit with incompetent political commanders who ran away and left their troops as soon as the fighting started.

People such as yourself should not try to discuss subjects you obviously know very little about.

 

Uhh... nooo...
The US really did support Saddam Hussein, The Shah of Iran, and Bin Laden who ruled by terror.

Iran is not at least intimidated by IS. It's quiet funny that you don't get why they fight IS atm.

Iran was the first country to sell arms to the Kurds. They dont mind a rather independent Kurdistan.

They did. They removed everybody who had a lot to do with Saddam and his regime. That included the high up officers in the Iraqi army. So they got replaced with people who got no experience. Worked out splendid for IS.

 

Hilarious. You never fail to cheer me up. Thanks.

 

Syrian Baathists and Iraqi Baathists are two different animals.

I don't think those scumbags are muslims at all. If anything their behavior clearly shows them to be apostates. This is about bigotry and politics. Age old bigotry of sunnis against shia and associated political power exploiting religious justification for criminal behavior. You know the old "god is on our side" garbage.

 

The US never supported Bin Laden. Lets see your best evidence for a laugh.

 

I didn't claim they had attacked anyone and I specifically said they are dreaming of an Islamic empire. Scurrying about for refuge in a strawman already?

Fascinating to watch the BS become you peoples reality. Russia and Britain installed the Shah in 1941.

 

Wikipedia:
Under Operation Cyclone from 1979 to 1989, the United States provided financial aid and weapons to the mujahideen through Pakistan's ISI. Bin Laden met and built relations with Hamid Gul, who was a three-star general in the Pakistani army and head of the ISI agency.

 

You can not have an empire with zero conquest ever.

from wiki:
In August 2013, 60 years after, the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) admitted that it was involved in both the planning and the execution of the coup, including the bribing of Iranian politicians, security and army high-ranking officials, as well as pro-coup propaganda.[11][12] The CIA is quoted acknowledging the coup was carried out "under CIA direction" and "as an act of U.S. foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government.

You're just wrong at every turn.

 

Dixie...You'd better keep quiet about things you know nothing about. For your own good. There is no need to expose your ignorance any further. That's the biggest problem with Americans, they don't know what their own government is doing.


Bill Clinton and Osama bin Laden ratlines in Bosnia: Clinton is a hypocrite!
https://themoderntokyotimes.wordpress.com/tag/osama-bin-laden-and-bosnia/

leejay@moderntokyotimes.com

http://moderntokyotimes.com

 

So we gave aid to the Afghan Mujahideen through ISI, and in your mind, since the ISI met with Bin Laden, the US therefore supported Bin Laden???? Nonsense.

 

You seem fond of declaring my ignorance, followed by a long cut and paste that doesn't contradict a thing Ive said. If you can locate your nads, man up and actually point out something I was wrong about.

 

But you CAN "dream" of such an empire without conquest. Just ask our Iranian poster.

If you can locate your nads, feel free to point out what I was wrong about little boy. Nothing in your Wikipedia article contradicts a thing I said. Your Wiki copy and paste is in reference to 1953. The shah was installed in 1941. The shah cant be "installed" in 1953 as the shah of Iran when he has been the shah since 1941. Your complete ignorance as to history is what enables the BS to become your reality.

 

Well, the Syrian Baathist are primarily Alawite while the Iraqi Baathist are Sunni, but I don't know what that has to do with your claim that ISIS in Iraq is primarily made up of former Iraqi Baathist. Or are you already running from that claim to move onto another?

Actually their behavior mirrors the first Rashidun ("Rightly Guided") Caliphate that waged the Wars of Apostasy against fellow Muslims who stopped paying Zakat to Mecca when Muhammad died. Or the Saudi Ikhwan who waged war against the godless Shiites in Iraq in the 1920s. The Islamic Caliphates that existed from 632 until the 1920s is an inherent component of Islam. Its absence from the 1920s until 2 years ago is in contradiction of Islamic doctrine.

 

Oh the irony that any Iranian politician would criticize anyone else on international law.

 

We did support the Shah which was the correct call given the alternative which we are seeing in Iran today.

The rest of this above is pure fantasy ... you just made it up.

I know why Iran is sending their troops into Iraq ... they want to dominate the region.

Horse puckey.

When 0bama turned tail and ran away from Iraq they were left with a capable army.

Their own leaders appointed incompetents to replace them.

You're talking about the disbanding of the Iraqi army in 2003 ... not the same thing.

Seriously, quit while you think you're ahead.

 

It's absolute nonsense, but that never seems to stop leftys from making the claims they do.

I wonder how many of these Iranian apologists are 9/11 truthers.