You said they have no links to terrorism. You’ve already contradicted yourself. Support and aiding is a definite link to terrorism. Iran orchestrated the bombing of the American embassy, even. They used proxys to carry it out, though.
But maybe bin Laden isn’t a terrorist. He supports it, aids it, and plans it, but he doesn’t carry it out. :rolleyes:
Unless you are a troglodyte, you knew what I meant when I said that there were no links to terrorism. I guess I should have dumbed-down my posts for members such as yourself. Of course the hard liners in the Iranian regime support extremist activities, but that does not mean that Iran in a terrorist state, nor does that mean that Iranians are terrorists.
According to your broken logic, Saudi is a terrorist state because Bin Laden is Saudi, or that America is a terrorist state because Kissinger is a war criminal.
So by “Iran has no links to terrorism” you really meant that, “Yes, the Iranian government supports terrorism, but it doesn’t actively send out terrorists”? That doesn’t make any sense. Look, the Iranian dictatorship funds terrorist groups, offers safehouse, and has orchestrated attacks. Therefore, they are an active terrorist state. And yes, Saudi Arabia is, to a notably lesser degree, a terrorist supporting state. They’ve given money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, IIRC.
IMHO, supporting, funding and planning terrorism is just as reprehensible as doing it. Iran’s terror links are expansive and undeniable.
2thick, have you heard of the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish commnity center in 1994? According to a defector from Iran’s intelligence service,
Terrorism, no?
I don’t know where my head is today. That second “1994” should be replaced with “Buenos Aires”, and note that the link is to an abstract only; the full article has to be purchased from nytimes.com.
Being very drunk now (not the greatest way to enter into a debate), I am completely sick of the Israeli issue, it is obvious Israel are doing wrong and by ludricously claiming they have a army that conforms to the highest moral standard they turn people against them.
Iraq is the country that pays out to the families of suicide bombers, but Iran is heavily involved with Hezbollah.
Another thing I am sick of is antisemites (not on this board I hasten to add) using the Palestine issue as a stick to beat the Jewish community with.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu said it best:
As you well know, the information from defectors is notoriously false. Now, let us assume that it is true and that single act is terrorism (even though there is no real substantiation from a legitimate source like, Amnesty International).
With that being said, your definition is easily extrapolated to Israeli acts of terrorism. http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/MDE150052001?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES\ISRAEL%2FOCCUPIED+TERRITORIES
If you try to use the “self-defense” argument to defend the actions of the IDF, then you will start to accelerate down the slippery slope of semantics and the-blame-game of the Middle East.
I am not trying to play the “but look at them” game, but no one is screaming that Israel is a terrorist state even though they have many more openly terrorist-like acts committed by the government. This includes funding terrorist groups such as the illegal settlers.
I would also like to admit my own bias against Palestinians. I have many reasons why I do not like them, but the facts are facts in this case.
A lot of people here seem to think that Iran is still under the rule of Khomeni and the Ayatollahs. Iran is not a country with a single immutable identity but a country with a changing and evolving identity.
As for terrorism - really, the USA has been the biggest state sponsor of terrorism of the the 20th century. No other country even comes close.
As you well know, the information from defectors is notoriously false.
Do you have any evidence to indicate that the information from this defector is false?
Technically Iran is still under the rule of an Ayatollah (Ayatollah is just a rank of the shi’ite clerics, a bit like a bishop), but he was democratically elected and is a reformist leader.
In point of fact, it is.
Not Khomeini of course, but supreme power is invested in his hand-picked successor Ayatollah Sayyid 'Ali Khamen’i, who as chief of state for life trumps all of Iran’s democratic instituitions, including president Khatami. That Iran is at base more democratic at its lower levels than almost all of its neighbors and rather less dominated by fundamentalists than it once was, does not change the fact that it continues to be the only real theocracy in existence today ( since the Taliban were deposed ).
However I do agree with this. I continue to disagree with the ‘Axis of Evil’ policy in this context. But I have already argued that elsewhere.
The Israeli’s have no birthright to the middle east. Sharon has no right to govern a country that shouldn’t really exist.
The Khazar kingdom (Eastern Europe around 8th to 13th century)was converted to Judaism. The empire eventually split apart and the members across Europe. They are not Semites which would give them a birthright to the Middle East, they are simply Jews. The Middle East should absorb Israel, and that should be that.
Actually Tamerlane, Ayatollah Khamenei holds a huge influence, but does not infact run the country. The reformist President Mohammed Khatemi (also an Ayatollah) has made huge leaps forward there, with the main obstacle to reform being the conservative judicary.
Wizo, perhaps Israel should not of been created where it currently is in the first place, but it is there now. No-one can truly say by how much the Ashkenazi are descended from the Khazari (though most of the Jewish population of Israel are Mizahri anyway), but to me that issue is irrelevant to the current situation.
Said judiciary being under the de facto ( and to some extent actual ) control of Khamenei ( the Faqih ). He is also Commander-in-Chief of the military, has de facto control of all security and intelligence apparati, as noted appoints and can dismiss the head of the judiciary ( who makes further appointments down the line ) and the equivalent of the Supreme Court ( Special Clerical Court ), appoints directly half of the upper legislative body ( Council of Guardians ) and indirectly controls the candidacy of the other half.
I agree the reformists have made strides. Significant ones at that, though I wouldn’t yet call them huge. However it depends what you call “running the country”. In terms of day to day administration, no, Khamenei isn’t much involved in that. But he still is the final arbiter of power in Iran and though it would certainly cost him politically, maybe heavily, he ( and the Council ) can legally remove Khatami from office by decree any time he pleases. Given this, I think it is still fair to say Iran is ‘controlled by the Ayatollahs’ in a very real sense ( not just in the fact that President Khatami is one ).
I wouldn’t want to downplay Iran’s genuinely democratic instituitions and the progress they are making. But I think it is mistake to exaggerate in the other direction as well.
My first link is borked. Try here instead
Hm…the Iranian democratic system sounds very much like our British democractic system. 