advertisement


War declared, Israel v Palestine...

PaulMB said:
The Anglo-American coup was in 1953, 71 years ago. Iran has been an "Islamic Republic" for 45 years. Your narrative, in which "the West" is responsible for everything suggests that Iranians are incapable of managing themselves. Which I think is untrue and, in a sense, racist. Which I think is untrue and, in a sense, racist. The Shah was solidly supported by an Iranian middle class, the 1978-79 revolution was brought about by the Iranian masses, and after a brief, secular, Kerensky-like interval was taken over by the religious extremists.
Click to expand...
Racist? FFS.

That you justify the corruption and subterfuge of the US and UK in overthrowing a democracy to install a known murderer by blaming that overthrow on those overthrown, is revealing. It’s the same victim blaming being used to justify state murder in Gaza. To say that the overthrown in a small country are responsible for being overthrown by two of the most powerful counties on the globe at the time, is precisely the kind of madness that justifies dictatorships, apartheid and genocides since the beginning of time.

To say that somehow an unelected murder who used arbitrary arrest and torture to suppress opposition somehow represented most Iranians is simply not true, as born out by your own words a sentence later, let alone history.

I know you yourself support genocide and ethnic cleaning in Gaza, but don’t play the racism card on me please. It just looks like a cheap dead cat tactic.
 
Seeker_UK said:
If you have a spare 30 minutes, have a read of this:

www.iiss.org

Iran’s Strategic Intent | Qassem Soleimani

Explore how Iran has refined its strategic doctrine since the end of the Iraq-Iran War and learn how its expeditionary security and military capacity has evolved to meet new demands.
www.iiss.org www.iiss.org

(It is a bit out of date given the demise of Soleimani, but the rest remans true, I believe)

So "dominate" is probably not the right word but they wish to be the strategic power in the region leading a Shia 'axis' of several countries and forces in the region who can fight on their behalf.
Click to expand...
Isreal *is* the strategic in the region. And Israel *is* extending that region by genocide and ethnic clensing.

Iran‘s “dominance“ is a dead cat
 
ks.234 said:
Isreal *is* the strategic in the region. And Israel *is* extending that region by genocide and ethnic clensing.
Click to expand...

Israel is not operating in other countries like Yemen or Iraq and Syria. Whilst Israel's actions are more bloody, they are quite 'local'.

ks.234 said:
Iran‘s “dominance“ is a dead cat
Click to expand...

Iran's primary aim is to weaken its perceived adversaries, which it does by using other forces (proxies) to fight for them, or bolster its (few) allies, such as support to Syria. To achieve that requires significant regional influence and it always seeks to expand that influence; that is taking a dominant position in the middle East and certainly more 'expansionist' than Israel.

Please read the IISS document, you may find it illuminating. If you don't have the time nor inclination, there's this one which is a bit more concise.

 
Seeker_UK said:
Iran's primary aim is to weaken its perceived adversaries, which it does by using other forces (proxies) to fight for them, or bolster its (few) allies, such as support to Syria. To achieve that requires significant regional influence and it always seeks to expand that influence; that is taking a dominant position in the middle East and certainly more 'expansionist' than Israel.
Click to expand...

Sorted🙂

The US's primary aim is to weaken its perceived adversaries, which it does by using other forces (proxies) to fight for them, or bolster its (few) allies, such as support to Israel. To achieve that requires significant regional influence and it always seeks to expand that influence; that is taking a dominant position in the middle East and certainly more 'expansionist' than Iran.
 
Seeker_UK said:
Israel is not operating in other countries like Yemen or Iraq and Syria. Whilst Israel's actions are more bloody, they are quite 'local'.



Iran's primary aim is to weaken its perceived adversaries, which it does by using other forces (proxies) to fight for them, or bolster its (few) allies, such as support to Syria. To achieve that requires significant regional influence and it always seeks to expand that influence; that is taking a dominant position in the middle East and certainly more 'expansionist' than Israel.

Please read the IISS document, you may find it illuminating. If you don't have the time nor inclination, there's this one which is a bit more concise.

Click to expand...
You seem to be trying to paint me as some sort of ignorant supporter of the Iranian regime. I am well aware of what Iran stands for and it’s strategic objectives thank you, and btw, I do not support them
 
ks.234 said:
You seem to be trying to paint me as some sort of ignorant supporter of the Iranian regime. I am well aware of what Iran stands for and it’s strategic objectives thank you, and btw, I do not support them
Click to expand...

Not at all. Just offering evidence to counter your "Iran is not after regional dominance and is not as bad as Israel" view.
 
Seeker_UK said:
Israel is not operating in other countries like Yemen or Iraq and Syria. Whilst Israel's actions are more bloody, they are quite 'local'.
Click to expand...

Not to the same extent or as publicly but Israel does a huge amount of "influencing" abroad

Israel stole identities and made passports from UK, Australian, NZ, French, German and Irish citizens and that is just the stuff that made it to the press because they messed up.

They royally pissed off the UK and US in the 90's when it was discovered they were stealing intelligence through Comverse, NICE and Amdocs.
 
Seeker_UK said:
Israel is not operating in other countries like Yemen or Iraq and Syria. Whilst Israel's actions are more bloody, they are quite 'local'.
Click to expand...

The Israeli lobby is operating by proxy through political shills bought & paid for to spread their agenda, this is well known and reported on.
 
PaulMB said:
The Anglo-American coup was in 1953, 71 years ago. Iran has been an "Islamic Republic" for 45 years. Your narrative, in which "the West" is responsible for everything suggests that Iranians are incapable of managing themselves. Which I think is untrue and, in a sense, racist. The Shah was solidly supported by an Iranian middle class, the 1978-79 revolution was brought about by the Iranian masses, and after a brief, secular, Kerensky-like interval was taken over by the religious extremists.
I don't think there is any doubt that Iran would like to be the top dog in the Middle East, as would Erdogan's Turkey. Then there is Saudi Arabia, which seems essentially to be concerned with its own welfare, and to this end with profitable collaboration with "the West."
Click to expand...
I would disagree with your last sentence: Saudi Arabia has been very busy exporting its Wahhabi version of Islam to all corners of the world for at least 50 years, and has spared no expense doing so. Saudi Arabia is definitely one of the political poles of the region.
 
Seeker_UK said:
Not at all. Just offering evidence to counter your "Iran is not after regional dominance and is not as bad as Israel" view.
Click to expand...
As you wish to compare Iran and Israel, given the war crimes, the genocide and the ethnic cleansing and the deliberate targeting of hospitals and refugees, in what way is Israel not as bad as Iran?
 
ks.234 said:
where did I say that Iran was not after regional dominance?
Click to expand...

You stated:

To accuse Iran of wanting to “dominate” that part of the world is the same as accusing Hamas of expansionist intent.
Click to expand...

Given Hamas are not expansionist (they just want their territories set up as a Palestinian state), led me to think that you meant Iran was not wanting to dominate the region.
 
Somafunk said:
Blair is a born again evangelical Christian nut job isn’t he?, he’ll fit right in with his Israeli chums
Click to expand...
Actually he converted to Roman Catholicism some time ago. But then, in the USA at least, Catholics and "evangelicals" have become chums, mainly over the abortion issue. It has always been a Catholic doctrine, going back to the very beginnings of Catholicism, but the "evangelicals" are johnnies-come-lately on the issue, and have in fact become more extreme that the RCs.
 
Seeker_UK said:
You stated:



Given Hamas are not expansionist (they just want their territories set up as a Palestinian state), led me to think that you meant Iran was not wanting to dominate the region.
Click to expand...
My meaning was quite clear, and it was not that.
 
tones said:
Actually he converted to Roman Catholicism some time ago. But then, in the USA at least, Catholics and "evangelicals" have become chums, mainly over the abortion issue. It has always been a Catholic doctrine, going back to the very beginnings of Catholicism, but the "evangelicals" are johnnies-come-lately on the issue, and have in fact become more extreme that the RCs.
Click to expand...
The convert is more catholic than the Pope.*

*Just look at what he does in the woods
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top