Hard-core fundamentalist leads Iran presidential vote

[Imran Siddiqui]

I hope that roll eyes smily expresses agreement, or else you are looking very foolish.

Bush opening his mouth is what the Ayatollah's want. Everytime he does that (Axis of Evil speech), the polls show the conservative hardlines gain support (and you have the anti-American protests).

[Vince278]

@ Bush being the source of all that is wrong in the world. Iran was taking Marines hostage in our own embassy long before Bush became president. I for one 'roll eyes' when others try to play the 'Bush' card to divert blame for their own shortcomings.
(and I don't feel the least bit foolish )

[Imran Siddiqui]

Iran was taking Marines hostage in our own embassy long before Bush became president.

And do you know WHY the Marines took Americans hostage in the late 70s? Could it be because the biggest enemy in modern Iranian history was a guy that the US supported and then sheltered when his government was overthrown?

You may think that they don't react very well when the US tries to tell them what to do for that reason?

Frankly, this is the one place, more than all others, where we were responsible. The rabid anti-Americanism in Iran is a direct result of our idiotic policies regarding the Shah. And when Bush opens his big mouth, it reinforces that the US is trying to control them as it did through its proxy Reza Pahlavi.

And whenever Bush speaks, the hardliners gain more and more support. The rallying around the government syndrome when attacked is just as big in Iran as it is in the US.

To deny Bush's remarks days before the election had a big impact is to put your head in the sand like an ostrich and ignore history and politics.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And do you know WHY the Marines took Americans hostage in the late 70s? Could it be because the biggest enemy in modern Iranian history was a guy that the US supported and then sheltered when his government was overthrown?

Oh. Well that makes it alright then.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I see you avoid the logical consequences that occur from the US supporting and harboring Iran's own Stalin, and how, maybe, perhaps, that may lead to the Iranians getting just a tad bit touchy when an American President tells them what to do.

I guess we've found out what is worse than someone who blames Bush for everything... someone who thinks Bush's hands are 100% clean for every single bad thing that happens in the world.

[Vince278]

Keep trying. They were still not within the bounds of acceptable behaviour, even by Islamic standards.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And of course that means that now they should accept it with pleasure and satisfaction when the US President tells them what to do?

Hell, France simply disagrees with us and Americans go off the rocker. I can only imagine what would happen if a major country told us that we weren't a valid democracy.

Oh, and thanks for your bigotted remarks at the end there

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

And of course that means that now they should accept it with pleasure and satisfaction when the US President tells them what to do?

Not at all, they should react within the bounds of acceptable behaviour. How many hostages did Belgium take the last time they disagreed with us?

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Hell, France simply disagrees with us and Americans go off the rocker. I can only imagine what would happen if a major country told us that we weren't a valid democracy.

Did we take any French hostages? By your reasoning we are well within our rights to do so.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Oh, and thanks for your bigotted remarks at the end there

Oh, get off your high horse. I was referring to the standards of behaviour set in the Koran. Taking hostages is un-Islamic (and so is most of the other things we've been hearing about in the news lately).

[Imran Siddiqui]

This is nice... a not so subtle attempt to change the topic from Bush's influence on the Iranian elections to whether it is acceptable to take hostages (though in the great Bu****e-Republican tradition, you have taken an explination for why someone did something into a praising for the act!!)!

Did you realize you lost on the other issue completely and totally?

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
This is nice... a not so subtle attempt to change the topic from Bush's influence on the Iranian elections to whether it is acceptable to take hostages (though in the great Bu****e-Republican tradition, you have taken an explination for why someone did something into a praising for the act!!)!

Really? I thought we were talking about hostages over an hour ago.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Did you realize you lost on the other issue completely and totally?

Actually, it looks like you totally blew it on the standards of acceptable behaviour by any applicable measure. Good luck talking your way out of that without sounding as bad as them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Really? I thought we were talking about hostages over an hour ago.

Trying to justify your threadjack after being pwned completely?

I like the fact that my post at 4:55 was entirely about the Iranian elections and your next post tried, in vain, to construe it in terms of your threadjack.

Actually, it looks like you totally blew it on the standards of acceptable behaviour by any applicable measure. Good luck talking your way out of that without sounding as bad as them.

Hey, look... trying to explain behavior = supporting it. I assume whenever someone explains why the Russians revolted in October 1917, they are actually secret Commies.

Now if during the this evening "logical consequence" somehow became "acceptable behavior", you MAY have had a point. But it doesn't, so you don't. So sit and corner and lick the wounds you've been given by the pwnage you've suffered.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Vince278
Keep trying. They were still not within the bounds of acceptable behaviour, even by Islamic standards.

I'm trying to work out what's Christian about supporting dictators who employ a secret police that tortures people....

Founded to round up members of the outlawed Tudeh, SAVAK expanded its activities to include gathering intelligence and neutralizing the regime's opponents. An elaborate system was created to monitor all facets of political life. For example, a censorship office was established to monitor journalists, literary figures, and academics throughout the country; it took appropriate measures against those who fell out of line. Universities, labor unions, and peasant organizations, among others, were all subjected to intense surveillance by SAVAK agents and paid informants. The agency was also active abroad, especially in monitoring Iranian students who publicly opposed Pahlavi rule.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+ir0187)


Oh look, Library of Congress speak. 'Neutralizing' opponents. With what ? Antacid tablets ?

Nope:

SAVAK's torture methods included electric shock, whipping, beating, inserting broken glass and pouring boiling water into the rectum, tying weights to the testicles, and the extraction of teeth and nails.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[

Actually, it looks like you totally blew it on the standards of acceptable behaviour by any applicable measure. Good luck talking your way out of that without sounding as bad as them.

Hey, look... trying to explain behavior = supporting it. I assume whenever someone explains why the Russians revolted in October 1917, they are actually secret Commies.

Now if during the this evening "logical consequence" somehow became "acceptable behavior", you MAY have had a point. But it doesn't, so you don't. So sit and corner and lick the wounds you've been given by the pwnage you've suffered.

Still waiting for an answer. Resorting to juvenile slang and trying to change the subject isn't going to help.
(Since when does explaining something equal supporting it? Now if you were to actually attempt to justify it... )

[Vince278]

Originally posted by molly bloom
I'm trying to work out what's Christian about supporting dictators who employ a secret police that tortures people....

Two wrongs don't make a right. Nor does it justify taking the low road.

[Vince278]

Sorry, my shift's over. Gotta go.