PDA

View Full Version : Civil Unrest Spreads Across Iran


boxcar
12-30-2017, 09:20 AM
Anti-Regime Protests Spread Across Iran

https://www.redstate.com/john-tabin/2017/12/29/anti-regime-protests-spread-across-iran/?utm_source=rsmorningbriefing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Unlike Obama, who strongly supported the Israeli-hating, terrorist-supporting state, Trump voiced strong support for the protestors.

President Trump’s Excellent Message of Support for the Protesters in Iran

https://www.redstate.com/absentee/2017/12/30/president-trumps-message-support-protesters-iran/

Marshall Bennett
12-30-2017, 01:01 PM
I kinda hope we stay out of it. We didn't support the Shah when civil unrest in support of an Islamic religious tyrant took force. They got what they asked for, a leadership as bad as the Nazis. Now they want it removed....Fk em!!
We don't need a nuclear conflict with Iran, we have enough trouble elsewhere.

lamboguy
12-30-2017, 01:17 PM
I kinda hope we stay out of it. We didn't support the Shah when civil unrest in support of an Islamic religious tyrant took force. They got what they asked for, a leadership as bad as the Nazis. Now they want it removed....Fk em!!
We don't need a nuclear conflict with Iran, we have enough trouble elsewhere.
i agree with you, there is no way in hell we want to battle 80 million Persians. but it looks like we are more likely to go to war with Iran than North Korea.

boxcar
12-30-2017, 02:16 PM
I agree completely with both you gents. In retrospect, the U.S. not only made a horrible foreign policy decision but over all these decades, we have become facilitators to that oppressive, tyrannical regime. (God only knows what the average Iranian citizen thinks about the U.S.)

Having said that, we mustn't compound a very big mistake either. And I think turning a blind eye to a very wicked and hostile regime is no solution at all. Again...the Iranian people would interpret that as us giving tacit approval to the religious tyrants/zealots that in office. (If Obama were still in office, this is precisely what he would do -- look the other way!) We should act based on the present situation and the future. Iran is too dangerous to ignore. And more than this -- the Iranian government has dangerous allies even more wicked them themselves: China and Russia!

If these protests continue, Iran is going to have to make some tough decisions. Either quell the demonstrations with violence while the entire world witnesses their barbaric, murderous cruelty motivated by their religion, thereby losing politically correct Muslim brownie points all over the socialist world order, or they'll pull a classic move by distracting the world from its internal problems by focusing everyone's attention on an external problem instead. For example, Israel to name an obvious one.

Trump will have his work cut out for him if this civil unrest persists over there.
He should start thinking who his Arab friends are and if they can be used to persuade Iran to back off their oppressive ways. Assuming, the U.S. has any Arab friends in the world, he could play the Muslim Public Relations card and how Iran's oppressive actions would not serve Islam well from a PR perspective. This would be my first line of positive diplomatic action.

elysiantraveller
12-30-2017, 03:57 PM
Iran has been poorly mishandled by every Administration since the fall of the Shah.

The statement by the current Administration is the correct one but what is going on behind the scenes is much more important. That we don't know.

davew
12-30-2017, 04:39 PM
antifa has a chapter in Iran?

Tom
12-30-2017, 05:21 PM
Iran.
Bang, zoom.
To the moon.

Stinking bastards.
Good place for a smoking hole.

JustRalph
12-30-2017, 06:11 PM
i agree with you, there is no way in hell we want to battle 80 million Persians. but it looks like we are more likely to go to war with Iran than North Korea.

And those are just the ones living in Brentwood

Marshall Bennett
12-30-2017, 06:29 PM
Perhaps their government will spend more time dealing with civil unrest and less time on their nuclear agenda.
Wait till they've beat each other into submission, then we move in and make claim to oil the Shah promised us 40 years ago. We had 50,000 employees contracted there when the revolution unfolded. They were forced out in a haste, taking personal belongings and leaving everything else behind.

JustRalph
12-30-2017, 06:47 PM
Don’t forget. Dollar wise they support more terrorism on the planet than any other country

Saratoga_Mike
12-30-2017, 07:04 PM
Don’t forget. Dollar wise they support more terrorism on the planet than any other country

I assume you mean Saudi Arabia, which is by far the greatest fomenter of terrorism in the world. Not even close. Find a country with a large or growing population of radicalized Islamists and you'll find a Saudi connection (via its Wahhabi Islamic teachings). Two great examples are Kosovo and Indonesia, especially Kosovo. Please do not read this as a defense of Iran, as it is not.

davew
12-30-2017, 07:49 PM
I assume you mean Saudi Arabia, which is by far the greatest fomenter of terrorism in the world. Not even close. Find a country with a large or growing population of radicalized Islamists and you'll find a Saudi connection (via its Wahhabi Islamic teachings). Two great examples are Kosovo and Indonesia, especially Kosovo. Please do not read this as a defense of Iran, as it is not.

that can't be true - the Clintons have gotten millions from Saudi Arabia over the last couple decades - are the Clintons terrorists?

Saratoga_Mike
12-30-2017, 08:00 PM
that can't be true - the Clintons have gotten millions from Saudi Arabia over the last couple decades - are the Clintons terrorists?

The Clinton Foundation and the GW Bush library never should have accepted money from the Saudis, but they aren't making policy at this point. Trump's position on the Saudis during the campaign was correct. Unfortunately they kissed his ass a few months back, and he did a 180. That doesn't make Trump a terrorist, obviously, just wrong (same as the last four or five admins).

boxcar
12-30-2017, 08:48 PM
I assume you mean Saudi Arabia, which is by far the greatest fomenter of terrorism in the world. Not even close. Find a country with a large or growing population of radicalized Islamists and you'll find a Saudi connection (via its Wahhabi Islamic teachings). Two great examples are Kosovo and Indonesia, especially Kosovo. Please do not read this as a defense of Iran, as it is not.

Really: "greatest fomenter of terrorism in the world"? And who is building nukes: The Saudis or Iran? (Please do not read this as a defense of Saudi Arabia because it ain't. :coffee:

boxcar
12-30-2017, 09:25 PM
Iran blocking out the world from witnessing the demonstrations going on. They're banning the internet on cell phones.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-blocks-internet-may-shut-down-telegram-app-as-protests-spread/

fast4522
12-30-2017, 09:33 PM
The Clinton Foundation and the GW Bush library never should have accepted money from the Saudis, but they aren't making policy at this point. Trump's position on the Saudis during the campaign was correct. Unfortunately they kissed his ass a few months back, and he did a 180. That doesn't make Trump a terrorist, obviously, just wrong (same as the last four or five admins).

We the United States are a tough partner to trust in a time when Saudis are making strides in their culture to modernize, we might need to draw a baseline from the start of the Trump administration till the start of his prospective second term and see how we judge them after that period of time. Prior to electing President Trump the talk was Saudis getting nukes too, I could be wrong but that may have changed.

Tom
12-30-2017, 09:47 PM
Don’t forget. Dollar wise they support more terrorism on the planet than any other country

Thanks to Obama and his skids of cash delivered at night.

Tom
12-30-2017, 09:48 PM
that can't be true - the Clintons have gotten millions from Saudi Arabia over the last couple decades - are the Clintons terrorists?

B-i-t-i-n-g t-o-n-g-u-e
R-e-s-i-s-t-i-n-g...........
:pound::pound::pound:

Saratoga_Mike
12-30-2017, 09:49 PM
Really: "greatest fomenter of terrorism in the world"? And who is building nukes: The Saudis or Iran? (Please do not read this as a defense of Saudi Arabia because it ain't. :coffee:

Over the past 20 years, what percent of Islamic terrorism has been committed by Shia or Shia-influenced Islamists vs. Sunni (specifically Wahhabists) Islamists? It isn't even close. I'm certain you know this.

elysiantraveller
12-30-2017, 09:53 PM
Over the past 20 years, what percent of Islamic terrorism has been committed by Shia or Shia-influenced Islamists vs. Sunni (specifically Wahhabists) Islamists? It isn't even close. I'm certain you know this.

I haven't really understood the claim either. Regional terrorism I guess but 95% of Islamic Terrorist attacks are perpetuated by Sunnis. In fact, the group's that our drones fly around and drop bombs on are the exact same ones the Iranians shoot and drop bombs on.

boxcar
12-30-2017, 09:54 PM
Over the past 20 years, what percent of Islamic terrorism has been committed by Shia or Shia-influenced Islamists vs. Sunni (specifically Wahhabists) Islamists? It isn't even close. I'm certain you know this.

Mike, Iran is the new bully in the Middle East...AND...Iran, besides joining the nuclear clus, has some really nasty and dangerous international friends. If you don't know this, you haven't been keeping up with the times.

Saratoga_Mike
12-30-2017, 10:24 PM
Mike, Iran is the new bully in the Middle East...AND...Iran, besides joining the nuclear clus, has some really nasty and dangerous international friends. If you don't know this, you haven't been keeping up with the times.

You're addressing a different point, i.e., Iran's heightened influence in the Middle East which resulted from GWB's disastrous decision to invade Iraq. I'm happy to discuss this matter with you, but it wasn't my point. I claimed "Saudi Arabia was (and is) the greatest fomenter of terrorism in the world"(through its export of Wahhbism). In 2012, 70% of global terrorism was committed by Sunni Islamists, according to the National Counterintelligence Center. I would like to share the Shia stat with you, but it wasn't even listed, presumably too negligible. When the Iranians start exporting hate to every corner of the globe, I'll reconsider my position. That's what the Saudis have been doing for years and continue to do. If you don't know this, you haven't been keeping up with the times.

elysiantraveller
12-30-2017, 10:41 PM
...

Personally I think the next regional war in the Middle East, if there is one, is between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Won't have anything to do wirh Israel.

Lemon Drop Husker
12-30-2017, 11:01 PM
that can't be true - the Clintons have gotten millions from Saudi Arabia over the last couple decades - are the Clintons terrorists?

That is no longer a question for those with a nugget in their skull.

boxcar
12-31-2017, 01:59 PM
You're addressing a different point, i.e., Iran's heightened influence in the Middle East which resulted from GWB's disastrous decision to invade Iraq. I'm happy to discuss this matter with you, but it wasn't my point. I claimed "Saudi Arabia was (and is) the greatest fomenter of terrorism in the world"(through its export of Wahhbism). In 2012, 70% of global terrorism was committed by Sunni Islamists, according to the National Counterintelligence Center. I would like to share the Shia stat with you, but it wasn't even listed, presumably too negligible. When the Iranians start exporting hate to every corner of the globe, I'll reconsider my position. That's what the Saudis have been doing for years and continue to do. If you don't know this, you haven't been keeping up with the times.

What I do know is that Iran supports the two biggest terrorist groups on the planet and...hates the West...and...hates Israel...and...thanks to mainly Obama now has nuclear capability to express all that hatred...and has some very formidable and wicked allies in Russia and China. All these things NOW make them far more dangerous than the Saudis. And all this makes them more of influence upon the affairs of the entire world...not just the Middle East.

boxcar
12-31-2017, 02:16 PM
Personally I think the next regional war in the Middle East, if there is one, is between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Won't have anything to do wirh Israel.

Yes, it would because the whole world would be drawn into that war. The U.S. would not let Iran occupy Saudi Arabia and its oil fields. That would never happen.

elysiantraveller
12-31-2017, 02:29 PM
Yes, it would because the whole world would be drawn into that war. The U.S. would not let Iran occupy Saudi Arabia and its oil fields. That would never happen.

Nope.

Israel would put on some jiffy pop, 3D glasses, and grab a comfy seat.

boxcar
12-31-2017, 02:42 PM
Nope.

Israel would put on some jiffy pop, 3D glasses, and grab a comfy seat.

No, they wouldn't because they are our few trusted allies. And we would welcome their help since Russia and/or China would be drawn into such a conflict. Israel wouldn't be able to drop off the world scene.

elysiantraveller
12-31-2017, 02:51 PM
No, they wouldn't because they are our few trusted allies. And we would welcome their help since Russia and/or China would be drawn into such a conflict. Israel wouldn't be able to drop off the world scene.

5 Reasons No:

1) Just like Desert Storm we wouldn't want them involved because it spills the conflict over as Jews getting involved in a internal Arab (See Muslim) issue would draw the conflict wider.

2) Arabs killing Arabs is all cool with Israel... see the Iraq/Iran war.

3) They have no vested interest in either side and would rather just see them obliterate each other.

4) Israel is not a trusted ally. They care about Israel first and foremost. No fault in that but getting involved is not in their best interest.

5) Hell, we would probably be tempted to grab the jiffy pop too...the head of OPEC and the regional military power slugging it out wouldn't affect us much.(Less serious point but still kinda serious.)

boxcar
12-31-2017, 03:13 PM
5 Reasons No:

1) Just like Desert Storm we wouldn't want them involved because it spills the conflict over as Jews getting involved in a internal Arab (See Muslim) issue would draw the conflict wider.

2) Arabs killing Arabs is all cool with Israel... see the Iraq/Iran war.

3) They have no vested interest in either side and would rather just see them obliterate each other.

4) Israel is not a trusted ally. They care about Israel first and foremost. No fault in that but getting involved is not in their best interest.

5) Hell, we would probably be tempted to grab the jiffy pop too...the head of OPEC and the regional military power slugging it out wouldn't affect us much.(Less serious point but still kinda serious.)

You don't get it, do you? This would be no "Desert Storm". This would be a world conflict due to the oil assets of SA, and whether we would want Israel to be involved or whether Israel wants to cool its jets and sit it out on the sidelines would be irrelevant because once the super powers become involved, there would be no other option for Israel but to protect itself and side with the U.S.. There would be no bystanders or armchair quarterbacks in this kind of a conflict. Well....maybe France. :coffee:

elysiantraveller
12-31-2017, 03:24 PM
You don't get it, do you? This would be no "Desert Storm". This would be a world conflict due to the oil assets of SA, and whether we would want Israel to be involved or whether Israel wants to cool its jets and sit it out on the sidelines would be irrelevant because once the super powers become involved, there would be no other option for Israel but to protect itself and side with the U.S.. There would be no bystanders or armchair quarterbacks in this kind of a conflict. Well....maybe France. :coffee:

You have an interesting world view.

The superpowers (there's only really one) have nothing to gain by entering into a wider conflict over Iran/Saudi Arabia and a lot more to lose. Plus nobody in the world really likes either one of them.

Anywho this is way off topic and the things you describe haven't happened before despite similar scenarios playing out.

boxcar
12-31-2017, 06:46 PM
You have an interesting world view.

The superpowers (there's only really one) have nothing to gain by entering into a wider conflict over Iran/Saudi Arabia and a lot more to lose. Plus nobody in the world really likes either one of them.

Anywho this is way off topic and the things you describe haven't happened before despite similar scenarios playing out.

So you don't think the Saudi's oil would amount to a hill of beans in the grand scheme of things? Any country on the planet (especially an already-oil-rich nation) could attack SA and everyone would just give a big yawn? You do realize that the Saudi's alone account for about 13% of the world's crude oil production and over 1/3 of OPEC's production? If you don't think any country threatening a Saudi takeover would have any geopolitical consequences, then so be it.

And if you don't think Russia and China are superpowers (even Grade "B" ones), then I think you're delusional. Methinks the U.S. would have more than its hands full in dealing with both of these all at once and simultaneously.

elysiantraveller
12-31-2017, 07:15 PM
So you don't think the Saudi's oil would amount to a hill of beans in the grand scheme of things? Any country on the planet (especially an already-oil-rich nation) could attack SA and everyone would just give a big yawn? You do realize that the Saudi's alone account for about 13% of the world's crude oil production and over 1/3 of OPEC's production? If you don't think any country threatening a Saudi takeover would have any geopolitical consequences, then so be it.

And if you don't think Russia and China are superpowers (even Grade "B" ones), then I think you're delusional. Methinks the U.S. would have more than its hands full in dealing with both of these all at once and simultaneously.

To your first point. Yes. The United States doesn't need the oil. Europe can buy from Russia, Venezuela, Canada, the US, the rest of OPEC who doesn't like S.A. btw. All are preferable to getting involved in what is tantamount to a Holy War in the Middle East.

As far as Russia and China why would they risk a conflict with the United States. One in which they have so much to lose and so little to gain over some Muslim Theocracy? Putin, the smartest leader in realpolitik today sure as hell wouldn't. Russia likes Iran insofar as they trade with them and cause us problems but they aren't risking a war with the US and potentially NATO over it.

You're far more likely to see what we see in Syria where they support their guys and we support ours in Proxy War fashion. Israel wouldn't take sides in that conflict.

boxcar
12-31-2017, 08:01 PM
To your first point. Yes. The United States doesn't need the oil. Europe can buy from Russia, Venezuela, Canada, the US, the rest of OPEC who doesn't like S.A. btw. All are preferable to getting involved in what is tantamount to a Holy War in the Middle East.

As far as Russia and China why would they risk a conflict with the United States. One in which they have so much to lose and so little to gain over some Muslim Theocracy? Putin, the smartest leader in realpolitik today sure as hell wouldn't. Russia likes Iran insofar as they trade with them and cause us problems but they aren't risking a war with the US and potentially NATO over it.

You're far more likely to see what we see in Syria where they support their guys and we support ours in Proxy War fashion. Israel wouldn't take sides in that conflict.

I never said the U.S. would "need" Saudi oi; but what about the rest of the world? Would they need Saudi oil? What if 1/3 or so of OPEC's oil export's were held hostage by Iran or some other whack job state? Would that impact global oil prices? (Probably not much, huh? Maybe a nickle or so at the pump?) :rolleyes:

With all due respect, I think you're suffering from a touch of [mental] myopia.

elysiantraveller
12-31-2017, 09:14 PM
I never said the U.S. would "need" Saudi oi; but what about the rest of the world? Would they need Saudi oil? What if 1/3 or so of OPEC's oil export's were held hostage by Iran or some other whack job state? Would that impact global oil prices? (Probably not much, huh? Maybe a nickle or so at the pump?) :rolleyes:

With all due respect, I think you're suffering from a touch of [mental] myopia.

I addressed it. They just buy it elsewhere. The Saudis control price through manipulating the production of oil. There is no global shortage of the stuff.

I just said it's unlikely that a conflict like that spills into some major world war. I fail to see how it would. Just saying Saudi Arabia produces lots of oil isn't a reason the world would be picking teams in a regional and internal religious war. Certainly not Israel and likely many others.

A proxy war is much more likely. See Syria.

boxcar
12-31-2017, 10:22 PM
I just said it's unlikely that a conflict like that spills into some major world war. I fail to see how it would.

Obviously, you don't.

Have a Happy New Year!

elysiantraveller
12-31-2017, 10:30 PM
Obviously, you don't.

Have a Happy New Year!

And you as well!

boxcar
01-01-2018, 08:36 AM
And you as well!

Thanks! My New Year is starting off great. My internet still works fine even with the "horrible" demise of NN. No massive amounts of dead bodies in the streets (that I know of, anyhow), as grimly predicted by our Aunt Nancy after the tax cut bill passed. No fish swimming in the streets of Miami, due to climate change, to the best of my knowledge. The weather is coolish but quite nice in South Swampland. My dark Columbian coffee tastes great. And I'm confident that Trump is going to kick more butt this year.

Man...life is good! :coffee: :ThmbUp:

boxcar
01-02-2018, 09:02 AM
New York Times Blames Iranian Protesters For ‘Ignoring Calls for Calm’

https://www.redstate.com/sarah-rumpf/2018/01/01/new-york-times-blames-iranian-protesters-ignoring-calls-calm/?utm_source=rsmorningbriefing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

The Slimes and other media are taking care of the Muslim PR problem that I mentioned other day, and are covering Obama's back, of course.

woodtoo
01-02-2018, 09:28 AM
New York Times Blames Iranian Protesters For ‘Ignoring Calls for Calm’

https://www.redstate.com/sarah-rumpf/2018/01/01/new-york-times-blames-iranian-protesters-ignoring-calls-calm/?utm_source=rsmorningbriefing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

The Slimes and other media are taking care of the Muslim PR problem that I mentioned other day, and are covering Obama's back, of course.

According to the Slimes Iran is paradise a Utopian free country,they are so fortunate not to live in the gulags of the Trump dictatorship where woman are forced to wear what ever they wish.:lol:

Tom
01-02-2018, 10:49 AM
The NY Slimes said the same thing about Warsaw during WWII.

Good ole Slimes - at least we know who our enemy is.