Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Iranian Mullah's court US Democrats ????


RoofGardener

Recommended Posts

A curious thing. 

A senior adviser to the Iranian Supreme Leader made a speech a couple of days ago. 

It is the usual "foaming-at-the-brain" nonsense, crying supernatural destruction against the USA, England, Russia, France etc. 

But there is one curious difference. A difference that I've never seen before. On THIS occasion, it doesn't just rail against the USA as being a demon. It only rails against "capitalism" in the USA, which I take to mean the Republican Party. 

It's subtle, but is it possible that Iran is reaching out to the Democratic Party ? God knows the "progressive" wing of the democrats would be ENTIRELY open to rapprochement with the Islamic government of Iran, representing - as it does - the progressive ideals of authoritarian fascism, anti-christianity, and - of course - anti-semitism. . 

https://www.memri.org/reports/ayatollah-gholamali-naeimabadi-prompts-friday-sermon-crowd-chant-death-slogans-says-america

It will be interesting to see if this approach continues ? 

 

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

It's subtle, but is it possible that Iran is reaching out to the Democratic Party ? God knows the "progressive" wing of the democrats would be ENTIRELY open to rapprochement with the Islamic government of Iran, representing - as it does - the progressive ideals of authoritarian fascism, anti-christianity, and - of course - anti-semitism. . 

 

:lol:

The whole "problem" with Iran was started by the U.S.

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Piney said:

:lol:

The whole "problem" with Iran was started by the U.S.

 

That's the funny thing with "problems" though.  If you go back far enough you can place the responsibility on whoever the current "enemy" du jour may be.  The issue with the mullahs isn't really about the Iranian people.  A sizeable majority, especially among the youth, would prefer to have the old fanatics gone and develop friendlier relations with the west at large.  It is inescapable if the evidence is viewed without hard bias, that those leaders are fanatics and desire nukes to cement their control over their nation and the wider region.  If they are allowed to achieve this, and Obama did his BEST to help them, then it makes the eventual use of those satanic toys much more likely.  Man, whoever you believe to be ultimately responsible won't matter a whit the day after those nut-jobs declare themselves a nuke weapons state.  The straits could be closed on a whim, leading to economic consequences as bad as any non-nuclear war. And it would immediately start a nuke weapons race in the region.  

I'd hope we could all agree that Iran in its current iteration has no legitimate need of nor an ability to safely be trusted with, nukes.  No country that is led by a death cult needs them if the world wants to keep turning a few more years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

But there is one curious difference. A difference that I've never seen before. On THIS occasion, it doesn't just rail against the USA as being a demon. It only rails against "capitalism" in the USA, which I take to mean the Republican Party. 

It's subtle, but is it possible that Iran is reaching out to the Democratic Party ? God knows the "progressive" wing of the democrats would be ENTIRELY open to rapprochement with the Islamic government of Iran, representing - as it does - the progressive ideals of authoritarian fascism, anti-christianity, and - of course - anti-semitism. . 

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

Is this what progressive means?

The Progressive Era was a period of widespread social activism and political reform across the United States that spanned from the 1890s to the 1920s.[1] The main objectives of the Progressive movement were eliminating problems caused by industrialization, urbanization, immigration, and political corruption. The movement primarily targeted political machines and their bosses. By taking down these corrupt representatives in office, a further means of direct democracy would be established. They also sought regulation of monopolies (trust busting) and corporations through antitrust laws, which were seen as a way to promote equal competition for the advantage of legitimate competitors.

I get confused when progressive, liberal, socialist, communist, anti-capitalist, fascist, totalitarian  all get thrown into the stew pot as if they were the same thing.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Republicans these days are capitalists?  Is that why we have tariffs instead of free competition, bail outs for farmers, and threats to close our southern border and stop trade? 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, and then said:

I'd hope we could all agree that Iran in its current iteration has no legitimate need of nor an ability to safely be trusted with, nukes.  No country that is led by a death cult needs them if the world wants to keep turning a few more years.

I think they should have them. :yes:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Piney said:

:lol:

The whole "problem" with Iran was started by the U.S.

 

i think the Iranians are looking to have the trade sanctions that Republican Trump imposed removed. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, and then said:

That's the funny thing with "problems" though.  If you go back far enough you can place the responsibility on whoever the current "enemy" du jour may be.  The issue with the mullahs isn't really about the Iranian people.  A sizeable majority, especially among the youth, would prefer to have the old fanatics gone and develop friendlier relations with the west at large.  It is inescapable if the evidence is viewed without hard bias, that those leaders are fanatics and desire nukes to cement their control over their nation and the wider region.  If they are allowed to achieve this, and Obama did his BEST to help them, then it makes the eventual use of those satanic toys much more likely.  Man, whoever you believe to be ultimately responsible won't matter a whit the day after those nut-jobs declare themselves a nuke weapons state.  The straits could be closed on a whim, leading to economic consequences as bad as any non-nuclear war. And it would immediately start a nuke weapons race in the region.  

I'd hope we could all agree that Iran in its current iteration has no legitimate need of nor an ability to safely be trusted with, nukes.  No country that is led by a death cult needs them if the world wants to keep turning a few more years.

well by that rational then only the U.S. Russia and China should be the only ones with nukes. meaning that Israel shouldn't have them either. you okay with that?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

well by that rational then only the U.S. Russia and China should be the only ones with nukes. meaning that Israel shouldn't have them either. you okay with that?

I dunno Captain. Considering the belicose nature of the surrounding countries, I think I would want nukes, if I was Israel. 

They've proven to be capable custodians of their nuclear deterrent.. rarely if ever threatening their neighbours with them. (and such threats they HAVE made in the past have been VERY subtle and low-key). The Iranian leadership - on the other hand - makes bloodthirsty threats against Israel (and the USA 'capitalists', and the Russians) all of the time. 

So what are we to make of the Iranian reference to "Capitalists", in connection with the USA ? Something I don't recall them ever doing in the past. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

I dunno Captain. Considering the belicose nature of the surrounding countries, I think I would want nukes, if I was Israel. 

They've proven to be capable custodians of their nuclear deterrent.. rarely if ever threatening their neighbours with them. (and such threats they HAVE made in the past have been VERY subtle and low-key). The Iranian leadership - on the other hand - makes bloodthirsty threats against Israel (and the USA 'capitalists', and the Russians) all of the time. 

So what are we to make of the Iranian reference to "Capitalists", in connection with the USA ? Something I don't recall them ever doing in the past. 

I'm making a point not attacking Israel. point is that one country gets them and then someone else wants them to counter and so forth. before you know it everyone has them. Pakistan got them from the U.S. to counter India. Israel got them from France and the U.S. to counter the Arab world. Iran is getting a nuclear program from Russia. and North Korea is getting theirs from China. i see a pattern here.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

I'm making a point not attacking Israel. point is that one country gets them and then someone else wants them to counter and so forth. before you know it everyone has them. Pakistan got them from the U.S. to counter India. Israel got them from France and the U.S. to counter the Arab world. Iran is getting a nuclear program from Russia. and North Korea is getting theirs from China. i see a pattern here.  

Hmmm... weeeelll... that begs the question. Who is threatening Iran, militarily, such that they would want Nukes for their own protection ? 

Their immediate neighbors are Iraq, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Azerbaijan. I don't see an existential threat from ANY of them ? Iraq DID invade Iran back in the 1980's, but it is in NO position to do anything aggressive NOW. 

Who - exactly - would we anticipate Iran using its nuclear weapons against ? 

Oh wait.. it's Israel, isn't it ? :P 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmmm... weeeelll... that begs the question. Who is threatening Iran, militarily, such that they would want Nukes for their own protection ? 

Their immediate neighbors are Iraq, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Azerbaijan. I don't see an existential threat from ANY of them ? Iraq DID invade Iran back in the 1980's, but it is in NO position to do anything aggressive NOW. 

Who - exactly - would we anticipate Iran using its nuclear weapons against ? 

Oh wait.. it's Israel, isn't it ? :P 

it could be Israel or it could also be Sunni Pakistan and its dependence on Saudi money. it could be Saudi Arabia which has already approached Trumps administration looking to buy nuclear program. it could be Turkey that his looking to Putin for a similar deal or it could be Greece that would also feel endangered. America pays Egypt 2 billion a year so it won't look for nuclear weapons but if that ever stops then they'll get them too. Syria and Iraq have had their nuclear dreams destroyed for now. not exactly a friendly part of the world. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt that Egypt would be capable of developing atomic weapons. Not so sure about Saudi, mind you. They've certainly got the financial resources. 

Saudi could develop a civilian nuclear power program WITHOUT having the ability to "weaponise" it. 

I really can't see Iran stiring up a hornets nest by attacking Pakistan.. there would be no real gain from it. Ditto Saudi Arabia. A nuclear strike against Saudi (or - for that matter - pretty much ANYONE except Israel) would just cause massive international approbation - including sanctions. 

An attack on Israel would ALSO cause massive Western approbation. However, Iran might well risk it to get the massive support of the Arab/Muslim world, regardless of the Shia/Sunni split, and regardless of Western sanctions. Israel may well be able to strike back, but just two or three atomic bombs would destroy Israel outright. So Iran might take the risk. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

i think the Iranians are looking to have the trade sanctions that Republican Trump imposed removed. 

The U.S. installed the Shah, then he used the USMC as his "bully boys" and that is how it all started

5 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Who - exactly - would we anticipate Iran using its nuclear weapons against ? 

I would think they are more "grownup" than that. They want a "mutual deterrent"  and I don't blame them. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

A curious thing. 

A senior adviser to the Iranian Supreme Leader made a speech a couple of days ago. 

It is the usual "foaming-at-the-brain" nonsense, crying supernatural destruction against the USA, England, Russia, France etc. 

But there is one curious difference. A difference that I've never seen before. On THIS occasion, it doesn't just rail against the USA as being a demon. It only rails against "capitalism" in the USA, which I take to mean the Republican Party. 

It's subtle, but is it possible that Iran is reaching out to the Democratic Party ? God knows the "progressive" wing of the democrats would be ENTIRELY open to rapprochement with the Islamic government of Iran, representing - as it does - the progressive ideals of authoritarian fascism, anti-christianity, and - of course - anti-semitism. . 

https://www.memri.org/reports/ayatollah-gholamali-naeimabadi-prompts-friday-sermon-crowd-chant-death-slogans-says-america

It will be interesting to see if this approach continues ? 

 

Iran is our sworn enemy. Reaching out would be considered collusion. Have we learned nothing yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Piney said:

The U.S. installed the Shah, then he used the USMC as his "bully boys" and that is how it all started

It goes back a good bit further then that.  During WW2 the Shah's father was ruling Iran after a successful coup he led over the previous dynasty but he was getting a bit to friendly with Germany for the allies liking so the US, UK, and the USSR over through him and installed his son as the ruler, who was only like 13 or 14 at the time.  Being so young he wasnt really interested in ruling the country and largely abdicated the throne by letting who ever was the prime minister rule, which was fine till the UK messed it up.  The UK had an oil extraction agreement with Iran that was extremely unfair, the UK ended up getting almost all of the profits despite the oil wells being in Iran and staffed by Iranians.  The prime minister we overthrew didn't like that agreement and tried to get a new agreement with a 50/50 split in profit but the UK rejected it and decided to blockade Iran for a good while.  The US tried to intermediate between the two but UK refused anything that changed the oil agreement.  Facing severe economic problems and dropping popularity the prime minister started to turn to more tyrannical methods and started to court the USSR which is when the US and UK overthrew him and reinstalled the Shah.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@DarkHunter  I just know what my former boss's old Marine buddies told me. One of them was one of those "bully boys". I haven't read into the backstory. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

Iran is our sworn enemy. Reaching out would be considered collusion. Have we learned nothing yet?

The 6 Nations was once the U.S.'s "sworn enemy". It's why most of us live in Canada.

What's wrong with a little peace now and then? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Piney said:

I think they should have them. :yes:

So you don't believe their rhetoric, you believe their rhetoric and approve, or you feel they have a valid claim to be the hegemons of the most crucial resource on the globe today? 

I'm actually curious, why do you believe the world would be safer with Iran possessing nuclear weapons and the power to close the straits of Hormuz on a whim?

 

1 hour ago, Piney said:

What's wrong with a little peace now and then? 

'tis a grand thing when both sides want it.  But if you're blindly trusting someone who has proven they can't be trusted, it can be costly.  These guys are no worse than the tyrants of other nations in the past but they certainly aren't better.  Even the EU is slowly coming around to the fact that the mullahs are hell-bent on acquiring nukes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, and then said:

I'm actually curious, why do you believe the world would be safer with Iran possessing nuclear weapons and the power to close the straits of Hormuz on a whim?

 

Well, I don't even think we should be involved. Let them all have weapons of mass destruction and they will hammer it out or hammer themselves into oblivion. Darwinism will work it out.

5 minutes ago, and then said:

'tis a grand thing when both sides want it.  But if you're blindly trusting someone who has proven they can't be trusted, it can be costly.  These guys are no worse than the tyrants of other nations in the past but they certainly aren't better.  Even the EU is slowly coming around to the fact that the mullahs are hell-bent on acquiring nukes.

Trust has to been earned on both sides. They don't trust us either. We already screwed them and many other countries over. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Piney said:

Well, I don't even think we should be involved. Let them all have weapons of mass destruction and they will hammer it out or hammer themselves into oblivion. Darwinism will work it out.

.....

Yeeeeeesss... umm... that might be a valid position from the luxury of your Comfy Chair in New Jersey. However, Iran's immediate (and near) neighbors can't really afford to be so lazze fair ? 

Edited by RoofGardener
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Yeeeeeesss... umm... that might be a valid position from the luxury of your Comfy Chair in New Jersey. However, Iran's immediate (and near) neighbors can't really afford to be so lazze fair ? 

Ask me if I care. :yes:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Yeeeeeesss... umm... that might be a valid position from the luxury of your Comfy Chair in New Jersey. However, Iran's immediate (and near) neighbors can't really afford to be so lazze fair ? 

Here's a plan Nancy. Pick up a G3 and go help them out. I have a couple of mates who use to hangout on the North Yorkshire Moors who would even teach you to use it. :yes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Piney said:

Here's a plan Nancy. Pick up a G3 and go help them out. I have a couple of mates who use to hangout on the North Yorkshire Moors who would even teach you to use it. :yes:

Ummm... no thanks :) 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

Yeeeeeesss... umm... that might be a valid position from the luxury of your Comfy Chair in New Jersey. However, Iran's immediate (and near) neighbors can't really afford to be so lazze fair ? 

That's cool.   It's their immediate neighbors they better be worrying about.  They'll be crushed soon enough but it's a shame so many non-fanatics will have to die with them.  As he said, Darwinism will get it sorted.  Apparently, his attitude on the topic is shared by most of the world.  Probably the way the majority felt about Herr Hitler and the new Democrat Socialist Worker's Party in the 1930s.  As a species, we do seem to love to repeat our mistakes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.