Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

[skhara]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

“women in Iran have the highest level of freedom”. -Ahmadinejad

Well given that his opinion that womens "freedoms" in the west is really enslavement, then it would be a true statement from his point of view. Its all a matter of cultural understanding. I actually did listen to his speech, and in relation with making that comment, he added a list of things that women are discouraged from doing (traditionally non-female things). Meaning that women were free from doing these activities.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia University in New York on Monday resulted in one clear loser: Israel.

Tzipi Livni was protesting Ahmi. She said:

Ighan eez not just a sghet to Izghael, Ighan eez a sghet to zee hole vold.

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Iran Strengthens South America Ties



CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — The leaders of Iran and Venezuela cemented an alliance aimed at countering the United States while the Iranian president reached out to a new ally in Bolivia and declared that together, "no one can defeat us." After being vilified during his U.N. visit this week, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad traveled on to friendlier territory Thursday, first stopping in Bolivia — where he pledged $1 billion in investment — and then visiting Venezuela to meet President Hugo Chavez. "Together we are surely growing stronger, and in truth no one can defeat us," the Iranian leader said through an interpreter. Apparently referring to the U.S., he said, "Imperialism has no other option: Respect the peoples (of the world) or accept defeat."

Chavez greeted the Iranian leader warmly on a red carpet in front of the presidential palace, where they both stood before microphones and let loose with rhetoric challenging Washington. "We will continue resisting to the end in the face of imperialism," Ahmadinejad said. "And the age of imperialism has ended." Chavez embraced the Iranian leader, calling him "one of the greatest anti-imperialist fighters" and "one of the great fighters for true peace." In his defiant speech to the U.N. General Assembly this week, Ahmadinejad rebuked "arrogant powers" seeking to curb Iran's nuclear program.

Chavez also strongly defends Iran's nuclear research, insisting it is for peaceful energy uses despite U.S. charges it is aimed at making nuclear weapons. The Venezuelan leader also says his country plans to eventually develop a nuclear energy program. Chavez said he was proud of Ahmadinejad's courage while under hostile questioning at New York's Columbia University. "An imperial spokesman tried to disrespect you, calling you a cruel little tyrant. You responded with the greatness of a revolutionary." In Bolivia, the Iranian leader pledged investment over the next five years to help the poor Andean nation tap its vast natural gas reserves, extract minerals, generate more electricity and fund agricultural and construction projects.

Bolivian President Evo Morales, who joins Chavez as one of Iran's key allies, called Ahmadinejad's visit historic as the two nations established diplomatic relations for the first time. Morales brushed off concerns about close ties to a country that the Bush administration says is a sponsor of terrorism, declaring that the "international community can rest assured that Bolivia's foreign policy is dedicated to peace with equality and social justice." Ahmadinejad's trip underscored his growing ties to Latin American nations, including Nicaragua and Ecuador, even as the U.S. tries to isolate him internationally.

The closer relationship is viewed with alarm by the opposition in Venezuela and Bolivia, and by Washington. U.S. Rep. Connie Mack, a Florida Republican, said they remind him "of the relationship that Fidel Castro had with Russia." He urged Washington to reach out more to a region analysts say it has largely ignored since the Sept. 11 attacks. Toward that aim, a bipartisan bill is being introduced in Congress on Friday that would establish a 10-year, $2.5 billion program aimed at reducing poverty and expanding the middle class in Latin America. It would require recipient countries to contribute and encourage matching funds from businesses and non-governmental organizations. The program would bring more stability in the long run and help the United States "re-establish leadership in the hemisphere" by increasing development assistance by more than a third, said bill co-sponsor Sen. Bob Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat.

Chavez's government, for its part, has promised more than $8.8 billion in aid, financing and energy funding to the region this year. Relations between Iran and Venezuela, meanwhile, have grown very close. Since 2001, they have signed trade agreements worth more than $20 billion in potential investment, according to Iran's official news agency, IRNA. They have teamed up to begin producing cars, tractors and plastic goods, and signed an agreement to help Venezuela build public housing. Iran Air began flights between Tehran and Caracas, with a stopover in Syria, earlier this year. Venezuelan xxxish leaders objected to the presence of Ahmadinejad, who has called for the end of Israel and questioned the history of the Holocaust.

"We raise our voice to condemn these statements by the Iranian leader which incite hatred, becoming a threat to world peace," the Venezuelan Confederation of Israeli Associations said in a statement. The country is home to a large xxxish population, including Holocaust survivors. It was Ahmadinejad's third visit to Caracas. Along with Nicaragua and Bolivia, Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa also wants closer ties with Tehran, and Iran's PressTV reported last month that Iran will for the first time open an embassy in Quito.

Source: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j...TPQOwD8RUANJO2

[Sip]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Well given that his opinion that womens "freedoms" in the west is really enslavement, then it would be a true statement from his point of view. Its all a matter of cultural understanding. I actually did listen to his speech, and in relation with making that comment, he added a list of things that women are discouraged from doing (traditionally non-female things). Meaning that women were free from doing these activities.

They also have a very warped sense of what "discourage" means ... like how they "discouraged" those two teens from homosexual behaviors by hanging them

[skhara]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

It should be pretty simply to comprehend that sodomy = death in Iran. Its illegal in Iran and punishable by death. Good for them. Perhaps the 'warped' societies are ones who allow such things.

[Sip]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

It should be pretty simply to comprehend that sodomy = death in Iran. Its illegal in Iran and punishable by death. Good for them. Perhaps the 'warped' societies are ones who allow such things.

That is an entirely different issue. But to make the leap from something "illegal" to something that "doesn't exist" (or to something that is "solved" or "discouraged" for that matter ) is just naive.

[Sip]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Good for them. Perhaps the 'warped' societies are ones who allow such things.

Thanks to this comment I decided to do a bit of reading especially on such matters since they seem to be very heavily against homosexual acts while they are extremely lax on pedophilia (which is more warped?). I have no idea if these quotes in this Wikipedia article are true, but I wouldn't really be surprised if they were.

More specifically, I would recommend a look at what Khomeini has had to say on the topic of sex with children. Instead of copy-pasting the whole bit, here's the most entertaining part:

"Thighing is a means for an adult male to enjoy a young girl who is still in the age of weaning; meaning to place his penis between her thighs, and to kiss her."

Maybe those homos in Iran should figure out how to "thigh" each other instead?

[skhara]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Ahmadinejad invites Bush to speak in Iran anytime he wants:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3664982

[skhara]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Ahmadinejad hailed in Middle East



The president of Iran, who has made a point of defying the West and Israel, has won admiration even among Sunni nations.
By Jeffrey Fleishman, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 24, 2007
CAIRO — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a flinty populist in a zip-up jacket whose scathing rhetoric and defiance of Washington are often caricatured in the Western media, has transcended national and religious divides to become a folk hero across the Middle East.

The diminutive, at times inscrutable, president is a wellspring of stinging sound-bites and swagger for Muslims who complain that their leaders are too beholden to or frightened of the Bush administration. Ahmadinejad, who arrived in New York Sunday ahead of a U.N. General Assembly meeting, is an easily marketable commodity:a streetwise politician with nuclear ambitions and an open microphone.

"I like him a lot," said Mahmoud Ali, a medical student in Cairo. "He's trying to protect himself and his nation from the dangers around him. He makes me feel proud. He's a symbol of Islam. He seems the only person capable of taking a stand against Israel and the West. Unfortunately, Egypt has gotten too comfortable with Washington."

Ahmadinejad's appeal is especially strong in Egypt, where he is compared to the late President Gamal Abdel Nasser, whose bold, yet doomed vision of pan-Arabism in the 1950s was also aimed at stemming Western influence. In the minds of many Egyptians, Iran's quest to expand its nuclear program despite United Nations sanctions is similar to Nasser's confrontation with the British and French over nationalizing the Suez Canal.

What's striking in Ahmadinejad's case, however, is that the leader of a non-Arab Shiite nation has ingratiated himself with the Middle East's predominantly Sunni Arab population.

In praising the Iranian president, Arabs quickly navigate around historical religious animosities and present-day fears that Iran is undermining Sunnis in Iraq and elsewhere. They prefer to speak of how Ahmadinejad is a rallying voice for Islam at a time the region is bewildered by its powerlessness to fix Iraq, Lebanon and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"He's a brave man," said Tayseer Ibrahim, an employee of the Egyptian Education Ministry, who was hurrying toward the subway the other day. "He's standing up to the U.S. He could have been intimidated after what happened to Saddam Hussein in Iraq, but he's not. The Iranian people must love him a lot. Hopefully, our Arab leaders will see that you can defy the West and nothing will happen to you."

Munther Farrah, who sells nuts and chocolates in Amman, the Jordanian capital, said he and other Sunnis are troubled by Iran's Shiite theocracy. "But Ahmadinejad is still liked," he said. "We are with him as long as he's against Israel and the U.S."

The passions are decidedly different in New York, where Ahmadinejad is scheduled to address the U.N. on Tuesday in an effort to block another round of sanctions over Tehran's nuclear program. Some American politicians have said the Iranian president should be turned away. Public pressure has forced him to cancel a visit to Ground Zero.

His U.N. appearance comes as Iran, which the U.S. regards as a state sponsor of terrorism, balances two diplomatic tracks: It has moved to soften international criticism of its human rights record by allowing three Iranian American academics and writers accused of spying to leave the country. On the other hand, it has intensified its defiance of the U.S. and Europe after the French foreign minister suggested that the world prepare for the possibility of war between Western nations and Iran.

The static of threats and counter-threats has enhanced Ahmadinejad's brand of populism, which stands in vivid contrast to the detached styles of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, King Abdullah II of Jordan and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. All three U.S. allies regard Iran as a dangerous enemy, most notably over Tehran's support of the militant groups Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. But they have also borrowed a bit from Ahmadinejad's script by criticizing Bush administration policies and the bloodshed in Iraq.

The governments in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia have undercut media freedom and suppressed political dissent, and are viewed by some of their people as corrupt and ineffectual in addressing economic and social problems. Iran runs its own version of the omnipresent, repressive state, but Ahmadinejad's intense distrust of the U.S. and hatred of Israel have elevated him to mythical status for the frustrated Arab mechanic, taxi driver or lawyer seeking a pure, forceful message.

The sentiment is similar to the respect won by Hezbollah, which fought a war with Israel in 2006, and Hamas, the radical Palestinian party that seized control of the Gaza Strip in June. Both were credited with tenacity and portrayed as underdogs battling against larger enemies. This type of resolve, along with Iran's pride as a sovereign state, echoes through Ahmadinejad's speeches and asides.

"It is more of a scream that reflects the incapacity of both the Arab regimes and Arab peoples to achieve anything on the regional level," said Nabil Abdel Fattah, a political analyst with Al Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo.

Ahmed Taher, an Egyptian doctor, credits Ahmadinejad for pursuing nuclear technology, which Tehran says is for civilian use, but the U.S. suspects is for weapons.

"It's beyond doubt that Ahmadinejad's popularity surpasses any other leader in the Middle East," Taher said. "We shouldn't blame him for seeking nuclear weapons. Israel has them. It will be more balance for Muslims if we have them too. Israel is much more dangerous to the world than Ahmadinejad."

Some of the Iranian president's admirers, however, are concerned about his provocative nature, bellicose quips and coyness about Iran's nuclear intentions. Comparisons to Nasser's triumphs and defeats limn the edge of conversation about the Iranian leader: Nasser was victorious in the Suez crisis, but a decade later his miscalculations led to humiliating Arab defeat by Israel in the 1967 Middle East War.

"He's too audacious and this hurts him," said Reda Kheshein, an accountant scanning headlines at a newsstand in Tahrir Square in Cairo. "He doesn't have the right to say he wants to destroy Israel. He needs to be reasonable, not risky. Unfortunately, we suffered from riskiness in the past. Look at Nasser, he made a very risky decisions. We don't need any more martyrs."

Other Arabs wonder about Ahmadinejad's strategy in a region where political theater and hyperbole often mask quieter, behind-the-scenes diplomacy. They suggest that the Iranian president, who seldom displays shades of nuance and is given wide latitude by Iran's ruling religious establishment, is as spooky as he is inspiring.

"He has a sense of belonging to the Muslim world. He always stands by Muslim nations," said Hussein Ali, a guide waiting for a bus. "But I don't like his inability to unify his own people and his insistence on developing nuclear capabilities that would be dangerous to the whole world. But we need his strong Islamic voice to protect us from the West."

Ibrahim Sufa, a Jordanian shop owner, said Ahmadinejad is shrewd and calculating when it comes to spin.

"He's good. I feel he's really a moderate. He talks in the extreme, but he acts with restraint," Sufa said. "If America hits him, the whole region will go on fire."

[KarotheGreat]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's parliament on Saturday approved a nonbinding resolution labeling the CIA and the U.S. Army "terrorist organizations," in apparent response to a Senate resolution seeking to give a similar designation to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The hard-line dominated parliament cited U.S. involvement in dropping nuclear bombs in Japan in World War II, using depleted uranium munitions in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq, supporting the killings of Palestinians by Israel, bombing and killing Iraqi civilians, and torturing terror suspects in prisons.

"The aggressor U.S. Army and the Central Intelligence Agency are terrorists and also nurture terror," said a statement by the 215 lawmakers who signed the resolution at an open session of the Iranian parliament. The session was broadcast live on state-run radio.

The resolution, which is seen as a diplomatic offensive against the U.S., urges Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government to treat the two as terrorist organizations. It also paves the way for the resolution to become legislation that — if ratified by the country's hardline constitutional watchdog — would become law.

The government is expected to wait for U.S. reaction before making its decision. In Washington, the White House declined to comment Saturday.

On Wednesday, the Senate voted 76-22 in favor of a resolution urging the State Department to designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. While the proposal attracted overwhelming bipartisan support, a small group of Democrats said they feared labeling the state-sponsored organization a terrorist group could be interpreted as a congressional authorization of military force in Iran.

The Bush administration had already been considering whether to blacklist an elite unit within the Revolutionary Guard, subjecting part of the vast military operation to financial sanctions.

The U.S. legislative push came a day after Ahmadinejad told world leaders at the U.N. General Assembly that his country would defy attempts to impose new sanctions by "arrogant powers" seeking to curb its nuclear program, accusing them of lying and imposing illegal penalties on his country.

He said the nuclear issue was now "closed" as a political issue and Iran would pursue the monitoring of its nuclear program "through its appropriate legal path," the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog.

Tensions between the U.S. and Iran have escalated over Washington accusations that Iran is secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons and has been supplying Shiite militias in Iraq with deadly weapons used to kill U.S. troops. Iran denies both of the allegations.

Source:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298590,00.html

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Ahmadinejad hailed in Middle East

The president of Iran, who has made a point of defying the West and Israel, has won admiration even among Sunni nations.

Skhara, in a nut shell, all the "crazy" talk we hear from Tehran is primarily formulated to win public sympathy within the region's Muslim populations, be it Shiite or Sunni.

Although the ruling elite of various powerful Sunni nations in the region are pathetic stooges of the West, the main-stream Muslim populations in those nations are desperately seeking for a leadership that speaks their language. And Ahmadinejad, as unappealing as he may sound in the West, speaks precisely the language that the average Ahmad in the street understands.

Thus, it's all relative.

Their view of the world may seem primitive and foreign to us in the West, nonetheless, our Western views regarding democracy, liberalism, globalism, homosexuality, family structure, religion, materialism, sexuality, atheism, promiscuity, alcohol/drug usage, etc, seem foreign and primitive to them.

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's parliament on Saturday approved a nonbinding resolution labeling the CIA and the U.S. Army "terrorist organizations," in apparent response to a Senate resolution seeking to give a similar designation to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

KarotheGreat, I'm afraid I have to fully agree with the Iranian parliament regarding this matter. Comparatively speaking, the US Military, the US State Department and the CIA would make the worst terrorist organization in existence today look like a bunch of Boy Scouts.