Anyone else troubled by the claims that Iran is responsible for attacks...?

@BerryTheBoo

[quote]1. Iranians are at proxy war with Saudi Arabia [/quote]

You mean Saudi Arabia, and the Emirates, are conducting a brutal war, against the civilians of Yemen, and Iran is supporting one of the sides.


[quote]2. Saudis are selling all the cheap oil they could be selling right now [/quote]

And? Saudis are not thrilled oil is cheap. What's the point?

[quote]3. Revolutionary guards have been doing things like this all their history. Sepah e Quds was involved in killing half a million Syrians just a few years back when Obama was dealing with Iran.
[/quote]

Not sure what you mean by throwing President Obama's name in there. Iran's revolutionary guard, and Hezbollah, have been providing support to Assad's regime in Syria, against ISIS. Some people in the region, are thankful for that. For a reference on what happens when ISIS takes over, check out "what happens when ISIS takes over".

[quote]................
And again, all the evidence that are there now points to them. Nobody around Persian gulf has that power AND the will to do such thing.
[/quote]

You mean, other than every single country in the area, which is essentially Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

[quote]Which country? I guess you'd say it's "Israel" again. lol No war for Israel?[/quote]

Oh, I don't know. Saudi Arabia?

I think we should leave Iranians the fuck alone, so they can settle their own internal issues with the Mullahs, and they were projected to do that, until we stepped into it, and started talking regime change. This only drives seculars into a defensive mode, because they love their country, even though they may hate the Mullahs. However, a secular Iran, is not what neo-cons, or Saudi Arabia/GCC, want. For historical reference, check out what happened in 1953.

@BerryTheBoo Thanks for commenting.

@Northwest Thank you kindly for saying what I didn't feel like saying.

@Northwest

"You mean Saudi Arabia, and the Emirates, are conducting a brutal war, against the civilians of Yemen, and Iran is supporting one of the sides."

I haven't yet heard the news about Emirates and Saudi proxies bombing Iranian cities. It's true for the other side.

Houthis are not "the civilization of Yemen". They are a Shia militant group who operate under the wings of Iranian government and their antisemitism is no less extreme than that of Nazis. 65% of Yemenis are Sunni by the way. 35% are Shia, and not all of them support Houthis.

And calling a government that's hated by most of its own citizens and steals from them to help Lebanese proxies in order to bomb Israel, "civilization of Iran", is being a bit too generous.

Saudis aren't much better in human rights, but at least they don't let their foreign policy be dictated by an antisemitic fabricated Russian document, if you even know what I mean.

In any case, it's Iran and its proxies that are operating outside their borders from Iraq to Syria to south Lebanon and Yemen which are parts of the Sunni Arab world, not the other way around. That's simply a fact.

"And? Saudis are not thrilled oil is cheap. What's the point?"

Oil being cheap wasn't the point. Saudi and Iranian crude oil are the cheapest on the planet anyway because of their extraction cost.

The point was that Saudis have been completely taking over Iran's oil market with the new sanctions in place, and Iranian government which is in war with Saudis, naturally doesn't like that.

They've been threatening to disrupt the Arab oil trade for months, which is completely reasonable if you know anything about their current budget or lack there of, and their complete failure to do anything else other than using their military power to threaten their supposed arch enemies.

And when the leaders of a country openly state something, especially a country like Iran, you'd be a fool not to take that seriously or not to take that into account when something like this happens.

Major General Bagheri stated again they'd stop oil trade in Persian gulf if they want. That happened literally one day ago. That's when many American officials have been claiming they fired at a US drone on June 13.

A sane country that doesn't want war at all, doesn't state provocative nonsense like that and double down on them in such situations.

You could claim Saudis want war all you want and that Iranian government doesn't, all while Iranian leaders openly state they'd do things that would naturally end in war and Saudi officials openly state they don't want war after two oil tankers were attacked.

I, on the other hand, prefer to take statements by government officials seriously. I don't like Iranian officials laughing at my stupidity after they openly tell the world their intentions.


"Not sure what you mean by throwing President Obama's name in there. Iran's revolutionary guard, and Hezbollah, have been providing support to Assad's regime in Syria, against ISIS."

And occasionally sending drones over Israel and heavily bombing northern Syrian cities full of Sunnis while apparently they should have been busy killing all those "ISIS" militants in eastern Syria.

Creating an Islamist shia crescent under the guise of fighting another brutal Islamist group that happens to be Sunni doesn't sound much like something "freedom fighters" would do.

Also, Hezbollah has been and is a recognized antisemtic Islamist terror group across Europe and America. I wouldn't exactly think replacing ISIS with Hezbollah is a good thing. If I had a brain at least. Both are equally awful.

"You mean, other than every single country in the area, which is essentially Saudi Arabia and the UAE."

Of course Saudis and UAE have the power, but where's the will? A war in Persian gulf threatens the oil market the most. Iranians aren't the ones selling most of that oil right now to care much about such war.

And do you know anything about Iranian domestic politics that you assume they are all peace loving or even rational in their actions?

Do you even know many groups in Iran that are supported by the supreme leader himself are actively trying to make the current government of Iran collapse in order to put their own men in power? And they are succeeding.

And every single one of those groups including revolutionary guards have been fundamentally against Iran nuclear deal from the very start, blaming everything that's currently happening on the supposed "moderate" government and their deal with America.

They've already created a presidential ad for Qasem Soleimani. Revolutionary guards are planning to take over the government completely.

I said that just to inform you most groups operating in Iran don't think like you think they do. They are not peace loving moderates. Not even Rouhani and his government are, but there are far more warmongering characters in the Iranian government and even more irrational ideologically possessed ones than you think.

I would think twice before assuming everyone in Tehran doesn't like war.

"I think we should leave Iranians the fuck alone, so they can settle their own internal issues with the Mullahs"

Who said we shouldn't leave them the fuck alone to deal with their own problems? Everybody would, if their government wasn't using their vast resources and rich country to support militant groups across middle east and the world and threaten Sunni competitors in the oil market.

"until we stepped into it, and started talking regime change. This only drives seculars into a defensive mode, because they love their country, even though they may hate the Mullahs."

Who are you calling "secular" in Iran? The supposed "Eslah Talabs"? There is not a single secular group in the current Iranian government and none could operate freely even if they existed according to Islamic Republic's constitution.

No group that "hate the Mullahs" have been operating in Iran after Islamic revolution. That's simply a fact.

"However, a secular Iran, is not what neo-cons, or Saudi Arabia/GCC, want. For historical reference, check out what happened in 1953."

Are you referring to Mossadegh? Mossadegh was not against Islamists in Iran at all. He even helped save and free an assassin of the Devotees of Islam, an Islamist terrorist who killed Iran's prime minister. He did that because what he did give him power. It's a pretty obvious historical fact that the National Front in Iran actually supported many of the Islamists' actions.

If anything, Shah himself was the foremost secular character in Iran. Read about his "white revolution" and how he tried to reform and secularize Iranian society which he did with much success. Mossadegh didn't even try to do anything of that sort.

@BerryTheBoo [quote]I haven't yet heard the news about Emirates and Saudi proxies bombing Iranian cities. It's true for the other side.[/quote]

Are you for real? I said "Yemen" not "Iran".

[quote]Houthis are not "the civilization of Yemen". They are a Shia militant group who operate under the wings of Iranian government and their antisemitism is no less extreme than that of Nazis. 65% of Yemenis are Sunni by the way. 35% are Shia, and not all of them support Houthis. [/quote]

Really, you need to learn how to read. I said "civilians", we're not discussing civilizations here, we're talking about the 80,000-100,000 Yemeni civilians, who were killed as a result of the Saudi/GCC campaign.

It's more like 55% of the Yemeni population is Sunni, and why would you want to bring anti-semitism into it? Who said all of them support the Huthis? I was talking about the human toll.

[quote]Of course Saudis and UAE have the power, but where's the will? A war in Persian gulf threatens the oil market the most. Iranians aren't the ones selling most of that oil right now to care much about such war. [/quote]

You may not have noticed, but oil shipments have not been impacted, and the damage to the tankers, is superficial.

[quote]And do you know anything about Iranian domestic politics that you assume they are all peace loving or even rational in their actions? [/quote]

Where did I state anything related to Iranian domestic politics? Is your argument style, coming up with strawmen/red herrings?

But, as a matter of facts, I am very familiar with Iranian domestic politics.

[quote]Do you even know many groups in Iran that are supported by the supreme leader himself are actively trying to make the current government of Iran collapse in order to put their own men in power? And they are succeeding. [/quote]

Here we go again, pulling assumptions out of your ass. What's this got to do with what happened?

[quote]And every single one of those groups including revolutionary guards have been fundamentally against Iran nuclear deal from the very start, blaming everything that's currently happening on the supposed "moderate" government and their deal with America.[/quote]

No shit, really?

[quote]They've already created a presidential ad for Qasem Soleimani. Revolutionary guards are planning to take over the government completely. [/quote]

And they will, if we continue with our push to attack Iran.

[quote]I said that just to inform you most groups operating in Iran don't think like you think they do. They are not peace loving moderates. Not even Rouhani and his government are, but there are far more warmongering characters in the Iranian government and even more irrational ideologically possessed ones than you think.

I would think twice before assuming everyone in Tehran doesn't like war. [/quote]

Once more, no shit, and really? The thought did not occur to me. You're great at using strawmen.

[quote]Who said we shouldn't leave them the fuck alone to deal with their own problems?[/quote]

My country's secretary of state, and national security advisor, as well as our President, and of course, Netanyahu and MBS, and the GCC in general, but as long as no one is pushing for that.

[quote]Who are you calling "secular" in Iran? The supposed "Eslah Talabs"? There is not a single secular group in the current Iranian government and none could operate freely even if they existed according to Islamic Republic's constitution. [/quote]

You really need to develop some reading comprehension. I am talking about the people, not the political parties, that the Mullahs allow to operate.

[quote]Are you referring to Mossadegh? Mossadegh was not against Islamists in Iran at all. He even helped save and free an assassin of the Devotees of Islam, an Islamist terrorist who killed Iran's prime minister. He did that because what he did give him power. It's a pretty obvious historical fact that the National Front in Iran actually supported many of the Islamists' actions.

If anything, Shah himself was the foremost secular character in Iran. Read about his "white revolution" and how he tried to reform and secularize Iranian society which he did with much success. Mossadegh didn't even try to do anything of that sort.[/quote]

OMG! Razmara was not freed by Mosaddegh, the Iranian Parliament did. Oh yeah, and Mosaddegh did not do anything of that sort, because he was deposed in a coup, organized by the CIA and MI6. I guess you don't remember this.

To say that Mosaddegh was not secular, ignores actual history.

Yes, the Shah rule was secular, but his largess was limited to a small group of people. I am guessing your ancestry is part of that group. Saddam Hussein, BTW, was also secular, and so is Assad. You're biased and it shows, and I don't want my country to be involved in taking what your ancestry represented, and restoring that to power.

"OMG! Razmara was not freed by Mosaddegh, the Iranian Parliament did."

Razmara was the one who was assassinated. lmao. Khalil e Tahmasbi was the guy who was freed and National Front, Mossadegh's party helped in that. That's something acknowledged by historians.

I didn't say Mossadegh wasn't "secular". I said his party considered Islamists' actions useful and helped them. Again, that's simply a fact.

"we're talking about the 80,000-100,000 Yemeni civilians, who were killed as a result of the Saudi/GCC campaign."

And we're talking about nearly half a million Syrians who were massacred.

Don't pretend you're caring about people's lives here when you're taking side.

"You may not have noticed, but oil shipments have not been impacted"

Didn't know the war already began. lol Let a war begin then we'll see.

"My country's secretary of state, and national security advisor, as well as our President, and of course, Netanyahu and MBS, and the GCC in general, but as long as no one is pushing for that."

To quote myself: "Everybody would, if their government wasn't using their vast resources and rich country to support militant groups across middle east and the world and threaten Sunni competitors in the oil market."

@BerryTheBoo Typo on my part.

[quote]He even helped save and free an assassin of the Devotees of Islam, an Islamist terrorist who killed Iran's prime minister[/quote]

Not true. The Assassin was part of the Fedaye Islam group, which translates into "willing to sacrifice themselves" for Islam, and he was freed by the Parliament, that was upset over Razmara's position vis-a-vis the oil deal.

[quote]I didn't say Mossadegh wasn't "secular". I said his party considered Islamists' actions useful and helped them. Again, that's simply a fact.[/quote]

@BerryTheBoo [quote]Didn't know the war already began. lol Let a war begin then we'll see.
[/quote]

You should really learn a couple of things about international commerce. The revenue, is not going to drop, as prices will go up, and I don't want our kids to die, in oder for the nouveau Shahs can get back to power

@BerryTheBoo Cool, you can quote yourself.

"You really need to develop some reading comprehension. I am talking about the people, not the political parties, that the Mullahs allow to operate."

Lol. And what are the secular people going to do when they're not allowed to legally operate in the government?

What did you guys do when secular Iranians just tried to topple the regime again 2 years ago? Most of your public figures and news papers that supported Iran deal invited everyone to "stay silent".

Again, don't try to pretend you care about secular Iranians. You don't. Of course, neither do "neo-cons".

But at least they don't pretend making peace with secular Iranians' arch enemies, which is Mullah's establishment, is equal to helping and a great gift to secular Iranians.

@BerryTheBoo [quote]Lol. And what are the secular people going to do when they're not allowed to legally operate in the government? [/quote]

Did you miss the part, where I said that they need to figure that out on their own?

[quote]What did you guys do when secular Iranians just tried to topple the regime again 2 years ago? Most of your public figures and news papers that supported Iran deal invited everyone to "stay silent". [/quote]

And what should we have done? Invaded, like we did in Iraq? guess what that move resulted in? it gave the Mullahs control over the region from Iran, through Iraq, through Syria, to Lebanon. Congratulations.

[quote]Again, don't try to pretend you care about secular Iranians. You don't. Of course, neither do "neo-cons". [/quote]

I'll tell that to the Iranian guy I just finished having lunch with.

[quote]But at least they don't pretend making peace with secular Iranians' arch enemies, which is Mullah's establishment, is equal to helping and a great gift to secular Iranians.[/quote]

No one is pretending. We saw what "regime change" produced in Iraq. The best policy, was to stabilize things, and allow the Iranian people, to gain their own freedom from the Mullahs. Iran, is not Saudi Arabia. Look at this statistic:


This is the kind of thing that would have effected regime change, with no bloodshed. But when you mention the Shah's "secular" regime, you tip your hand.

"Did you miss the part, where I said that they need to figure that out on their own?"

And did you miss the part I said the same?

"And what should we have done? Invaded, like we did in Iraq? guess what that move resulted in? it gave the Mullahs control over the region from Iran, through Iraq, through Syria, to Lebanon. Congratulations."

lol who said you should have invaded? You're 20 trillions in debt. You better pray you don't invade any more country.

But you could start by not encouraging people to silence Iranian secular dissidents just to keep your precious Iran deal. I have Iranian friends who are dissidents. Many of them started to absolutely hate you for it and even started supporting Trump because of that.

40 Iranian secular public figures wrote a letter to Trump administration after the last uprising and your crappy reaction to it, demanding from him to start the sanctions again, which was something he actually took into account.

Those 40 public figures now lead a new opposition front with tens of thousands of followings. And some of them are even pro-war at times.

How's that working for you?

"No one is pretending. We saw what "regime change" produced in Iraq."

Again, I'm not necessarily in favor of regime change. At least not something forced by a foreign government.

But what you did wasn't just avoiding regime change. You shut your mouth and stopped supporting actual secular Iranian opposition. Supporting Rouhani and the social class who're supporting him isn't equal to supporting the secular opposition. In fact it's the exact opposite of that, and as I said, that's why a lot of Iranian secular opposition are now against you and back Trump's decisions.

And for shit's sake, you were just presenting Hezbollah the terrorist organization as a legitimate force to fight and replace ISIS in Syria. That's the definition of "pretending".

"The best policy, was to stabilize things"

Stabilize how? By letting IRGC operate on Israel's borders in the name of fighting ISIS? By letting them support the fucking Houthi militants?

Are you retarded by any chance? Nothing got "stabilized" in the golden age of Iran deal. What we had was Syrians getting barrel bombed and Israelis bombing Iranian bases in Syria every fucking week risking confrontation with a superpower like Russia. "Stabilize" my ass.

"allow the Iranian people, to gain their own freedom from the Mullahs"

Lol how would they "gain their own freedom" from Mullahs? Through reforms they're not allowed to have?

Is having more STEM graduates somehow linked to being successful in gaining political freedom? China leads in the same graph. They should have had the freest government I guess, not a one-party dictatorship.

Iranians can't even express their opposition online with their real photos for God's sake.

And if they do anything serious to gain freedom in Iran, it'd definitely disrupt the political and economic stability of Iran because Mullahs and IRGC are not going to lose power and they're backed by Russian government. Just go see what they've done so far to peaceful protesters.

You could either support Iranian government for the sake of "stability", or support Iranian dissidents and risk Iran's stability.

The latter neither needs invasion nor does it need direct intervention. You just have to avoid supporting Iranian regime. That's about it.

@Northwest

"This is the kind of thing that would have effected regime change, with no bloodshed."

Lmfao. Not even the most optimistic Iranians believe there can be regime change in Iran without bloodshed.

Especially not when European and Americans are having economic deals with the regime so that they could buy better firearms for the elite forces they use to crush uprisings.


"But when you mention the Shah's "secular" regime, you tip your hand."

Tip my hand for what? I live in a constitutional monarchy and I like it much better than American republic.

Iranians had a constitutional monarchy back in Shah's days. Whether or not he was a "dictator", he didn't try to destroy Israel because of some obscure bullshit reason about international Zionism, was in good terms with most of the world, didn't try to fuck with his Arab neighbors and not only that, he provided stability to the region. And he was also reforming and building his own developing society so maybe they could have a real democracy one day. Or maybe not. I wouldn't care even if they still had a secular dictator if they were still good with the world and didn't operate based on an ideology of death and destruction.

In contrast, you're in favor of supporting Hezbollah because it "stabilizes" the region. Lmfao And think secular Iranians would magically reform their country without bloodshed if we just let their murderous government deal with European billionaires.

Seriously, you're either pretending too hard, or you're just retarded.

@BerryTheBoo [quote]And for shit's sake, you were just presenting Hezbollah the terrorist organization as a legitimate force to fight and replace ISIS in Syria. That's the definition of "pretending".[/quote]

Huh? Where the fuck did you pull this from? Your ass? What a fucking dummy.

[quote]Are you retarded by any chance? [/quote]

I don't believe so. I do, however, have a nephew, who is mentally and developmentally disabled. My brother-in-law served in Kuwait, and my sister joined him for a while, and got pregnant while there. She came back home, 5 months pregnant. My nephew's disabilities are linked to the toxins she got exposed to, post torching of Kuwait.

Still though, he has more sense than a fucking idiot like you, who uses the word retarded.

Back to reality, not presented by a Shah's entourage descendant.

[quote]Nothing got "stabilized" in the golden age of Iran deal.[/quote]

Iran's nuke program was placed on the back burner. This meant that the Gulf states, did not have to rush into a nuclear program.

[quote]What we had was Syrians getting barrel bombed and Israelis bombing Iranian bases in Syria every fucking week risking confrontation with a superpower like Russia. "Stabilize" my ass.[/quote]

Yes, thanks to our invasion of Iraq. But, it looks you're too dumb to understand the consequences of our regime change action. Like it or now, the Christian communities, in Syria and Lebanon, owe their existence to Hezbollah. This is probably not because Hezbollah seeks religious harmony, but as a side effect of their desire to show the Sunnis as the bad guys. Nevertheless....

[quote]Lol how would they "gain their own freedom" from Mullahs? Through reforms they're not allowed to have? [/quote]

Through a process they need to come up with. Imposing sanctions, and invading is going to push those on the fence, and even those in the secular box, to the right. Even an idiot like should be able to understand that.

[quote]because Mullahs and IRGC are not going to lose power[/quote]

This was the same type of thinking, when the world thought that the Commies will not give up power in the Soviet Union.

[quote]You could either support Iranian government for the sake of "stability", or support Iranian dissidents and risk Iran's stability. [/quote]

Or, we could let Iranians resolve their own issue. It's really laughable to suggest that the Obama administration "supported" the Iranian government. What a dumb statement.

@BerryTheBoo

[quote[Tip my hand for what? I live in a constitutional monarchy and I like it much better than American republic. [/quote]

You live in a constitutional monarchy, but you are one of the remnants of the Shah's entourage.

[quote]Iranians had a constitutional monarchy back in Shah's days. [/quote]

You're not comparing Sweden's monarchy, to the Shah's regime are you? What a fucking idiot, and here's what I meant by you tipping your hand:

[quote]Whether or not he was a "dictator", he didn't try to destroy Israel because of some obscure bullshit reason about international Zionism, was in good terms with most of the world, didn't try to fuck with his Arab neighbors and not only that, he provided stability to the region. And he was also reforming and building his own developing society so maybe they could have a real democracy one day. Or maybe not. I wouldn't care even if they still had a secular dictator if they were still good with the world and didn't operate based on an ideology of death and destruction. [/quote]

[quote]In contrast, you're in favor of supporting Hezbollah because it "stabilizes" the region. Lmfao And think secular Iranians would magically reform their country without bloodshed if we just let their murderous government deal with European billionaires. [/quote]

And here's where you lie to your fucking teeth. Where, in the fuck did I suggest that I support Hezbollah? Now you're just fucking making shit up. Learn some facts.

[quote]Seriously, you're either pretending too hard, or you're just retarded.[/quote]

Here we go again with the retarded. My nephew has a physical/mental disability, What's your fucking excuse, you dumb shit?

@Northwest

"Through a process they need to come up with. Imposing sanctions, and invading is going to push those on the fence, and even those in the secular box, to the right. Even an idiot like should be able to understand that."

Lmfao. They need to come up with a process while their theocratic dictatorship seeks to even end their access to the internet, and we should be having economic deals with that government too while they do that. Of course, that's necessary for "stabilizing" the region I guess.

You're not just clueless about Iran old man. As I said, you're simply downright retarded.

I said your mere reaction to Iran's latest uprising had the exact opposite effect on secular Iranians. Many of them jumped behind Trump administration. And now despite what you think with your last remaining brain cells, Iranians are not getting united behind their government because of the sanctions.

Unlike the Rouhani-supporting "middle class" or the crony class you're supporting in Iran hoping to bring change "without bloodshed" which by the way isn't even 2-5% of Iranian population at this point, the new opposition are blue collar Iranians who've simply gotten tired of being fucked over and don't give a crap about "coming up with a process" to deal with Mullahs because they've tried it times and times again for 40 years and know that's impossible without toppling the regime.

I really think you should stop your pretentious nonsense talk about Iranians and how they should gain freedom. You look pretty stupid. Then again, you're just a retarded old man who thinks dealing with the Islamist regime in Tehran can stabilize the region, or did, for that matter. Maybe that's understandable.

@BerryTheBoo [quote]Then again, you're just a retarded old man[/quote]

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Why does this sound familiar? Oh, yes, because this is the last resort of those who lose an argument, especially from someone who claims that the Shah regime, was just like Sweden's, a "Constitutional" monarchy. What a fucking joke you are.

But then again, you're nothing more than an apologist for the Shah regime's bloodline, that squirted you in Sweden, and is now demanding their privileges back. You're about as connected to the Iranian street, as the Shah was.

@Northwest

"especially from someone who claims that the Shah regime, was just like Sweden's, a "Constitutional" monarchy."

I didn't make such comparison. I clearly called shah a dictator, only that Iran had a secular constitutional monarchy and it functioned rather well for its time, which is a fact. It didn't need to change to a republic, especially not an Islamic one, and doesn't need to remain that way for Iran to become free, which is another fact.

But that's quite funny coming from someone who's been whining about being misrepresented the entire argument.

It's also quite funny you're assuming my ancestry as a last resort to "win" the argument. I don't have a single drop of Iranian blood, but even if I had, you wouldn't be able to tell from an anonymous profile without making yourself look completely retarded.

You really are a retard old man.