72 replies to this topic

[Ali-Reza]

aliasghark, on 13 March 2013 - 04:57 PM, said:

One side says 'down with the American government'. The other side starves and kills people. I think it's clear which side is uncivilized.

I def. don't want to defend the American government and their FP as I mentioned earlier it is pretty evil.

But I do want to give you something to think about by giving you a real scenario.

I used to own a soccer store. And I used to have a drama queen customer who used to come in and give me all sort of trouble, her kid would run around destroy my store, and at the end she would call me, want to exchange the product, return it, etc. Just way to much drama with her. So one day I decided that I was going to stop selling my goods to her. Also I had a couple of friends who also soccer stores and sporting good stores, we used to do trade together. I told them to warning them that the lady was trouble. So they didn't want to do business with her either.

Now if her kid goes to soccer field without soccer shoes and gets hurts, is that my fault? All I did was that I stopped doing trade with her because of her nonesense.

Something to think about.

[repenter]

Ali-Reza, on 13 March 2013 - 06:56 PM, said:

I def. don't want to defend the American government and their FP as I mentioned earlier it is pretty evil.

But I do want to give you something to think about by giving you a real scenario.

I used to own a soccer store. And I used to have a drama queen customer who used to come in and give me all sort of trouble, her kid would run around destroy my store, and at the end she would call me, want to exchange the product, return it, etc. Just way to much drama with her. So one day I decided that I was going to stop selling my goods to her. Also I had a couple of friends who also soccer stores and sporting good stores, we used to do trade together. I told them to warning them that the lady was trouble. So they didn't want to do business with her either.

Now if her kid goes to soccer field without soccer shoes and gets hurts, is that my fault? All I did was that I stopped doing trade with her because of her nonesense.

Something to think about.

Not really a good example. In your case the lady was giving you trouble, and you sanctioned her.
When did Iran give USA trouble for USA to sanction Iran?

Another problem with your example is the fact that you told your friends to sanction her, you didn't force them. A lot of countries want to trade with Iran, but they aren't allowed to.

That's the difference.

Edited by repenter, 13 March 2013 - 07:00 PM.

[Ali-Reza]

repenter, on 13 March 2013 - 06:59 PM, said:

Not really a good example. In your case the lady was giving you trouble, and you sanctioned her.
When did Iran give USA trouble for USA to sanction Iran?

Another problem with your example is the fact that you told your friends to sanction her, you didn't force them. A lot of countries want to trade with Iran, but they aren't allowed to.

That's the difference.

But western countries have gone against US wishes in the past. Remember during Khatami when European counties lifted the sanctions against Iran and started doing trade with Iran. Couldn't that possibly be because Khatami and his government had a little sense of diplomacy?

[aliasghark]

Ali-Reza, on 13 March 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

But western countries have gone against US wishes in the past. Remember during Khatami when European counties lifted the sanctions against Iran and started doing trade with Iran. Couldn't that possibly be because Khatami and his government had a little sense of diplomacy?

Diplomacy is good, and it seems like Iran has tried it often but failed because America can't stand it.

Humoring the west, Iran stopped nuclear enrichment altogether for nearly two years. That was fruitless.

Iranians tried giving IAEA and the west more information on its nuclear program and becoming very transparent. What did they get in return? Assassination of Iran's scientists.

America needs to:

- stop spending millions of dollars to destabilize Iran http://www.washingto...7101002441.html

- stop supporting terrorist organizations operating against Iranians http://www.globalres...st-iran/5306609

- stop blocking Iranian trade and starving its economy http://worldundercon...-oil-sanctions/

- stop threatening Iran with bombing and destruction http://www.dailymail...ar-weapons.html

Is one million dead Iraqis for oil not enough for America? http://www.guardian....aq.iraqtimeline

How many Iranians does it want to kill now?

[aliasghark]

Remember brother Ali-Reza, as long as Iran keeps its oil for itself, America-Britain and co is going to continue fighting Iran.

Whenever Iran has tried to be independent, the west has replaced Iran's government with a submissive dictatorship. Now that Iran is an independent country managing its own affairs, it needs to be strong.

From wikipedia (please read at least the bolded sections):

The 1953 Iranian coup d'état (known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup[3]) was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran, and its head of government Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the United Kingdom (under the name 'Operation Boot') and the United States (under the name TPAJAX Project).[4][5] The coup saw the transition of Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi from a constitutional monarch to an authoritarian one who relied heavily on United States support to hold on to power until his own overthrow in February 1979.[6]

In 1951, Iran's oil industry was nationalized with near-unanimous support of Iran's parliament in a bill introduced by Mossadegh who led the nationalist parliamentarian faction. Iran's oil had been controlled by the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), now known as BP.[7] Popular discontent with the AIOC began in the late 1940s: a large segment of Iran's public and a number of politicians saw the company as exploitative and a vestige of British imperialism.[8] Despite Mosaddegh's popular support, Britain was unwilling to negotiate its single most valuable foreign asset, and instigated a worldwide boycott of Iranian oil to pressure Iran economically.[9] Initially, Britain mobilized its military to seize control of the Abadan oil refinery, the world's largest, but Prime Minister Clement Attlee opted instead to tighten the economic boycott[10] while using Iranian agents to undermine Mosaddegh's government.[11] With a change to more conservative governments in both Britain and the United States, Churchill and the U.S. Eisenhower administration decided to overthrow Iran's government though the predecessor U.S. Truman administration had opposed a coup.[12] Classified documents show British intelligence officials played a pivotal role in initiating and planning the coup, and that Washington and London shared an interest in maintaining control over Iranian oil.[13]

Does that ring a bell, do you see any similarities with what's happening today?

If you want peace and calm in this environment, the only clear way out is to give back control of Iran's resources to American and British companies. Then there will be peace.

[repenter]

Ali-Reza, on 13 March 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

But western countries have gone against US wishes in the past. Remember during Khatami when European counties lifted the sanctions against Iran and started doing trade with Iran. Couldn't that possibly be because Khatami and his government had a little sense of diplomacy?

They only lifted sanctions when Iran gave up its rights, in other words "went belly up" like a dog does. Diplomacy is only a pathway to take when you don't lose any rights.

How is it called diplomacy when you are given an order and unless you listen you are threatened?

This is a matter of principals. Some people don't believe in shaking hands with the biggest oppressor in the history of the world just to get an easy ride to then lose their dignity because of it, others think that is a good deal. Everyone to their own taste.

[Ali-Reza]

ya the world isn't fair or perfect and I believe that is by design!

Did Imam Ali run around saying "death to Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman" for them committing the worlds biggest injustice to him? No he peacefully and respectfully protested them it is in Nahjulbalagha.  Why did he do that? I like to think to teach people of our time a lesson. There is an entire chapter in Quran about people of our time. It is a short but very meaningful chapter. It is Surah Al-Asr which we all have memorized in our heads I wished our hearts and souls also had it memorized.  

I agree with you guys on many issues but the reaction of Iranian officials have never been appropriate in fact it has always been over reaction. They laugh at us here in the west. We haven't had one politically leader in a long time.

Respectfully but  seriously I disagree with your prospectives here but I don't think we can change each other's views on IRI's policies. Perhaps I am a bit too westernized who knows

So lets keep it at that.

Wasalam and Ya Ali

Edited by Ali-Reza, 14 March 2013 - 04:22 PM.

[repenter]

Ali-Reza, on 14 March 2013 - 04:11 PM, said:

ya the world isn't fair or perfect and I believe that is by design!

Did Imam Ali run around saying "death to Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman" for them committing the worlds biggest injustice to him? No he peacefully and respectfully protested them it is in Nahjulbalagha.  Why did he do that? I like to think to teach people of our time a lesson. There is an entire chapter in Quran about people of our time. It is a short but very meaningful chapter. It is Surah Al-Asr which we all have memorized in our heads I wished our hearts and souls also had it memorized.  

I agree with you guys on many issues but the reaction of Iranian officials have never been appropriate in fact it has always been over reaction. They laugh at us here in the west. We haven't had one politically leader in a long time.

Respectfully but  seriously I disagree with your prospectives here but I don't think we can change each other's views on IRI's policies. Perhaps I am a bit too westernized who knows

So lets keep it at that.

Wasalam and Ya Ali

Your examples need to have some base to it, or it will be of no use.
Imam Ali didn't run around and say death to Abu Bakr, Umar etc because Islam as we agree on it, aka shia islam, was in danger. That's also the reason why he didn't fight when they tied him up and dragged him down the street.
The fact that Iran isn't giving up it's right because of some sanctions have not only strengthened Shia Islam, but has also got it a lot of attention by the right people. It's a shame that Christians, Jews and atheists see this, but our own shias want to shake hands in order to get the sanctions off.

[aliasghark]

repenter, on 14 March 2013 - 06:21 PM, said:

Your examples need to have some base to it, or it will be of no use.
Imam Ali didn't run around and say death to Abu Bakr, Umar etc because Islam as we agree on it, aka shia islam, was in danger. That's also the reason why he didn't fight when they tied him up and dragged him down the street.
The fact that Iran isn't giving up it's right because of some sanctions have not only strengthened Shia Islam, but has also got it a lot of attention by the right people. It's a shame that Christians, Jews and atheists see this, but our own shias want to shake hands in order to get the sanctions off.

And to use the analogy from a previous post, despite all the horrible things American and British have done and are doing to Iranians, all Iranians do in return is express their wish for those criminal governments to go away. American governments have consistently been the trouble child causing havoc in the shop (country) of Iran.

Ali-Reza, you can't seriously want Iranians to also stop expressing their opinion of the foreign governments. It's the only justified thing they do, when Iran's population as a whole is being punished by the western governments.

Don't feel embarrassed by the western propaganda against Iran. This is exactly what they want, for Iranians to turn against their own government, while the actual problems are caused from outside. Be strong.

Edited by aliasghark, 14 March 2013 - 06:40 PM.

[Ugly Jinn]

Ali-Reza, on 13 March 2013 - 06:56 PM, said:

I def. don't want to defend the American government and their FP as I mentioned earlier it is pretty evil.

But I do want to give you something to think about by giving you a real scenario.

I used to own a soccer store. And I used to have a drama queen customer who used to come in and give me all sort of trouble, her kid would run around destroy my store, and at the end she would call me, want to exchange the product, return it, etc. Just way to much drama with her. So one day I decided that I was going to stop selling my goods to her. Also I had a couple of friends who also soccer stores and sporting good stores, we used to do trade together. I told them to warning them that the lady was trouble. So they didn't want to do business with her either.

Now if her kid goes to soccer field without soccer shoes and gets hurts, is that my fault? All I did was that I stopped doing trade with her because of her nonesense.

Something to think about.

What if the customer is also verbally threatening your friend's store, illegally giving people in that area weapons and money to harass the store, would you assist your friend somehow if you are able?

Edited by Ugly Jinn, 15 March 2013 - 03:44 AM.

[shadow_of_light]

It is true that inflation rate is increasing and everything is becoming more and more expensive but still I prefer to stay here, despite all  the problems.

[aliasghark]

Ugly Jinn, on 15 March 2013 - 03:43 AM, said:

What if the customer is also verbally threatening your friend's store, illegally giving people in that area weapons and money to harass the store, would you assist your friend somehow if you are able?

What if the store owner has bombed and illegally occupied two countries on both sides of yours and kills millions of people, and threatens to bomb you too?

[repenter]

Ugly Jinn, on 15 March 2013 - 03:43 AM, said:

What if the customer is also verbally threatening your friend's store, illegally giving people in that area weapons and money to harass the store, would you assist your friend somehow if you are able?

The friend you are talking about kicked those people out of their homes....

[Ugly Jinn]

aliasghark, on 15 March 2013 - 05:57 AM, said:

What if the store owner has bombed and illegally occupied two countries on both sides of yours and kills millions of people, and threatens to bomb you too?

repenter, on 15 March 2013 - 06:07 AM, said:

The friend you are talking about kicked those people out of their homes....

Then I would get involved. Just like the friends of the other store owner.

If you can justify getting involved in your friend's store which you don't own, the friend's of the opposition store can justify involvement also.

US is doing exactly what Iran is doing, they are both getting involved with their friend's store.

Edited by Ugly Jinn, 15 March 2013 - 09:43 PM.

[repenter]

Ugly Jinn, on 15 March 2013 - 09:20 PM, said:

Then I would get involved. Just like the friends of the other store owner.

If you can justify getting involved in your friend's store which you don't own, the friend's of the opposition store can justify involvement also.

US is doing exactly what Iran is doing, they are both getting involved with their friend's store.

We are talking about right and wrong, you are just stating the obvious saying both are involved....

[Ugly Jinn]

repenter, on 16 March 2013 - 05:47 AM, said:

We are talking about right and wrong, you are just stating the obvious saying both are involved....

No, I'm stating that a foreign country like US can justify it's involvement because Iran does the same.

You said, "Finally it's the issue of foreign involvement in Iran which any sane person will accept exists" (Post 31). Iran has justified sticking it's nose in foreign countries, hence is guilty of what exactly US is doing.

If Iran never interfered in other countries than I would back Iran 100%, but it does exactly what US does.

[iDevonian]

Ill go ahead and add two cents here.

We cannot sit and point fingers like "X is good" and "Y is bad".

The situation is far far far more complex than a black and white good verse evil story.

Right, there are more than two players in this game, and each country consists of a multitude of organizations and thousands of people.  Some organizations may have good interests, some may have bad.  Some may have good intentions but end up with bad practices, some may have bad intentions but end up with good practices, and all other options are on the table as well.  Some may not even care about the other store owners and may be worrying about their own interests. Others may be worrying about everyones interests. etc etc etc.

There is no "right" or "wrong".  Its a matter of subjectivity amongst many many many many people.

With that said, Ugly Jinn is correct in his statements.  People who criticize the US but not Iran are, essentially hypocrites, or are not familiar with just how complex the situation truly is.

The same goes for those who criticize Iran but not the US.

If you justify one stores fighting, you may as well be in the other store justifying the other stores fighting as well.  You are no better than they are.

[repenter]

Everyone to their own opinion of justice, fairness and intention i guess.

[aliasghark]

X hits Y without justification, and keeps hitting.
Y hits X back.

Z watching this says it's very complex, there's no right and wrong, everything is subjective, we should criticize both else we're hypocrites. (Z is in fact in the oppressor X's camp)

[iDevonian]

aliasghark, on 16 March 2013 - 09:27 PM, said:

X hits Y without justification, and keeps hitting.
Y hits X back.

Z watching this says it's very complex, there's no right and wrong, everything is subjective, we should criticize both else we're hypocrites. (Z is in fact in the oppressor X's camp)

If you are sitting in Ys camp, you wouldnt view Y as an aggressor, however, if you were in Xs camp, you would.  Vise Versa applies as well.

But they and you are no better nor worse than eachother.  The key word used was "subjective".  You are a demonstration of Zs accurate statement.

I think, even supporters of palestinians (as I am myself) must recognize that threats are also being made toward Israel.  Rockets blindly fired over the border.  Albeit practically ineffective, do instigate trouble.  Israel building houses over top of other peoples homes, doesnt help either.

Edited by iDevonian, 16 March 2013 - 11:21 PM.

[aliasghark]

iDevonian, on 16 March 2013 - 11:18 PM, said:

If you are sitting in Ys camp, you wouldnt view Y as an aggressor, however, if you were in Xs camp, you would.  Vise Versa applies as well.

Sure, they're not likely to see each other as nice and calm people. The point was that a third party is acting confused for some strange reason.

Quote

But they and you are no better nor worse than eachother.  The key word used was "subjective".  You are a demonstration of Zs accurate statement.

Who is the bolded 'you'?

Quote

I think, even supporters of palestinians (as I am myself) must recognize that threats are also being made toward Israel.  Rockets blindly fired over the border.  Albeit practically ineffective, do instigate trouble.  Israel building houses over top of other peoples homes, doesnt help either.

Does their killing Palestinians help?

[iDevonian]

aliasghark, on 17 March 2013 - 04:29 AM, said:

Sure, they're not likely to see each other as nice and calm people. The point was that a third party is acting confused for some strange reason.


Who is the bolded 'you'?


Does their killing Palestinians help?

It depends on who the third party is.  You, is referring to a person claiming one side is innocent, while another is guilty.  And no, people die on both sides, so showing one sides people dying doesnt help.

[skylight2]

aliasghark, on 16 March 2013 - 09:27 PM, said:

X hits Y without justification, and keeps hitting.
Y hits X back.

Z watching this says it's very complex, there's no right and wrong, everything is subjective, we should criticize both else we're hypocrites. (Z is in fact in the oppressor X's camp)

This is basically the liberal approach to social justice - which is to consider the oppressors and oppressed as equally wrong. Islam is NOT a liberal spiritual tradition - it is squarely on the side of the oppressed. This means that a Muslim has to exert himself to objectively identify who is being oppressed and who is the oppressors, s/he cannot take "both sides" - that is in fact hypocrisy. In our present age - most western type English only speaking Muslims get their information from the internet, and that too from sources that are mouthpieces of the oppressors, or, at best are liberal sources as identified by "Z" above.  Shi'a Muslims who have the WF focus do have a much wider understanding, because "they" ("we" - I count myself as WF "type") have another resources - we have the office of Imam Khamenei, the writings/statements of Imam Khomeini, as well as a large body of ulema and writings that help us understand 1)how to identify the oppressor, and 2) who the oppressor is in our present day.