Has Iran abandoned its ally Syria...

[qamar1990]

A long list of Muslim countries since they joined the Axis of Evil to buy time for their nuclear program.

bro , dont spread misinformation about iran... they are a friendly country.

 

[The SC]

Iran is just busy with the N-talks, the US and Usrael want to capitalize on that, so they took advantage of it and started the air attacks in Syria's no man's land in the North. Iran is playing the nice guy and talking about fighting terrorism, they must have had some assurances of no attacks against the Syrian government though.
After " finishing off " with ISIL/ISIS (Who in the worst case scenario, can just dismantle its forces hide its weapons, dissolve within the civilian population and wait for a better day), The US and allies will support the moderate anti Assad groups, who frankly speaking can do nothing against the Syrian forces, since they are much weaker that ISIL who couldn't already do much in Syria.
It looks like some vicious circle going around for some purpose we will all know about in some future.

 

[jamahir]

for me they are monsters.. so there is nothing good left for them by me

you calling them "monsters" spoils your below statement...

but I see the whole picture.. my adwise for you would be to consider your own "choice of view" without your feelings for them maybe you will find somthing between your point and my view

i suppose, we will therefore never have a common point of view, except maybe in case of ladies

And we all know Saddam was just another American-supported dictator.

on the contrary, it was khomenei who was.

Assad? A hero? Get real, buddy. There's a reason why there's a massive resistance against him.

massive resistance?? where?? certainly not among syrians within syria... the brave "syrian arab army" is composed of syrian peoples and not russians or north koreans or cubans.

Yes, the US has been extremely supportive of the Syrian resistance, but it was the actions of the regime that led to this immense crisis.

so, was the "arab spring" a sudden sincere outburst of anger limited to north africa, or could it have been a long-range plot to overthrow the last remaining socialist muslim nations??

I see you're a socialist. Perhaps it's your socialist bias which has led you to support men like Saddam and Gaddafi.

sincerely, a true socialist is a truly spiritual, innocent, trusting person, and at the same time, a practical, big-picture, methodical and scientific person... like a cat like i said above

so biases, i have yes... but they do not automatically decide why i respect those societies... somalia before 1991 was also socialist... siad barre as leader... quite an achievement it was, but not as well thought as the systems in baathi iraq/syria or jamahiri libya... or even socialist afghanistan.

 

[Hiptullha]

on the contrary, it was khomenei who was.

During the Iraq-Iran war, Saddam received aid from the US and its allies.

massive resistance?? where?? certainly not among syrians within syria... the brave "syrian arab army" is composed of syrian peoples and not russians or north koreans or cubans.
Hiptullha said: ↑
Yes, the US has been extremely supportive of the Syrian resistance, but it was the actions of the regime that led to this immense crisis.
so, was the "arab spring" a sudden sincere outburst of anger limited to north africa, or could it have been a long-range plot to overthrow the last remaining socialist muslim nations??

Yes, massive resistance. It didn't come out of nowhere. There has always been deep-seated resentment for dictators and leaders who abuse democracy all over the world. It was like a pressure cooker. Sometimes, small actions like the immolation of one man can cause a massive reaction.

so biases, i have yes... but they do not automatically decide why i respect those societies... somalia before 1991 was also socialist... siad barre as leader... quite an achievement it was, but not as well thought as the systems in baathi iraq/syria or jamahiri libya... or even socialist afghanistan.
Last edited: 12 minutes ago

Why do you support them?

 

[jamahir]

During the Iraq-Iran war, Saddam received aid from the US and its allies.

saddam's military was primarily armed with soviet and eastern bloc weaponary... yes, there was some western weaponary like the french-made exocet anti-ship rocket, and french help in the nuclear reactor program, some british planes, but not so much weapons supplied as much to iran, i would say.

on the other hand, iran received massive western and israeli weaponary through out the 1980-88 war... remember the "iran-contra affair"?? and below is a good list of iran's western bloc weaponary... even from little and "neutral" switzerland... fill out the form and find out for yourself... i selected years 1979-1988...

Trade Registers

Yes, massive resistance. It didn't come out of nowhere. There has always been deep-seated resentment for dictators and leaders who abuse democracy all over the world. It was like a pressure cooker. Sometimes, small actions like the immolation of one man can cause a massive reaction.

come on... those above words read like a bbc article... just read them once.

Why do you support them?

because socialism is the natural way of any human who is sensible, gentle by attitude, kind, non-crooked, likes justice, likes freedoms, "loves thy neighbor", loves progress, likes cleanliness, likes orderliness in society, likes gentle quietness etc etc.

in short words... socialism is justice, true freedoms, progress.

so, is there anything in socialism to hate about??

 

[Cyberian]

bro , dont spread misinformation about iran... they are a friendly country.

Is that why Iran did not hesitate to handover blueprints of Pakistani nuclear centrifuges to the United States which resulted in Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan having to apologise to the nation to save the army and country for international backlash?

CNS - Nuclear Tales from Pakistan - Feb. 23, 2004 - Research Story

Iranians will backstab any Muslim country to save their own skin and Pakistan has learned this from them the hard way, but it is a lesson that Pakistan will remember for a very very long time.

 

[Hiptullha]

saddam's military was primarily armed with soviet and eastern bloc weaponary... yes, there was some western weaponary like the french-made exocet anti-ship rocket, and french help in the nuclear reactor program, some british planes, but not so much weapons supplied as much to iran, i would say.
on the other hand, iran received massive western and israeli weaponary through out the 1980-88 war... remember the "iran-contra affair"?? and below is a good list of iran's western bloc weaponary... even from little and "neutral" switzerland... fill out the form and find out for yourself... i selected years 1979-1988...
Trade Registers

Iran Chamber Society: History of Iran: Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement
Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran

U.S. Secretly Gave Aid to Iraq Early in Its War Against Iran - New York Times

The Iran-Contra affair proves the US has been playing with both sides and been supporting turmoil between two parties. Both were simply puppets made to keep the region under terror.

come on... those above words read like a bbc article... just read them once.

They're completely true though. When you try to strangle someone, he will will resist, and fight back.

because socialism is the natural way of any human who is sensible, gentle by attitude, kind, non-crooked, likes justice, likes freedoms, "loves thy neighbor", loves progress, likes cleanliness, likes orderliness in society, likes gentle quietness etc etc.
in short words... socialism is justice, true freedoms, progress.
so, is there anything in socialism to hate about??

A noble belief. Unfortunately, under the barbarians who ruled the ME during that period would have been jailed. You'll notice, during the Communist Era in Russia, there was a great deal of time spent in jailing and discrediting the same intellectuals who fought side-by-side with the revolutionaries. Same goes with Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, almost every nation with a very strong socialist past.

 

[jamahir]

@Hiptullha, i must go to sleep now... it is 10:15... i will reply in about eight hours from now.

 

[Syrian Lion]

Most BS thread ever, it should be closed, I feel embarrassed to even write a post in this thread...

 

[jamahir]

Iran Chamber Society: History of Iran: Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement
Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran

U.S. Secretly Gave Aid to Iraq Early in Its War Against Iran - New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/26/w...id-to-iraq-early-in-its-war-against-iran.html

1. your second link... "foreignpolicy.com"...

i found this... ( When Rouhani Met Ollie North ) and i quote...

"But the group, which consisted of senior National Security Council staffers, including a then little-known Marine lieutenant colonel named Oliver North, had a second and arguably more ambitious goal: to forge a new political alliance with moderate Iranian leaders, such as Rouhani and his bosses, the men who ran the country."

"What North had just described, and what McFarlane was hearing for the first time, was the covert scheme that would become known as the Iran-Contra Affair"

so your own reference site also speaks of one method of western governments supplying armaments to the post-1979 iran government ( led by khomenei )... so which of those two articles will you believe?? i myself gave link to the sipri document which gives you a more detailed list of which western government supplied weapons to iran during the 1980-88 iran-iraq war... and primary among iran's supplier was israel.... so which article will you believe??

and to further confuse you, i give you wikipedia link to the "halabja poison gas attack" incident for which usa government and iran have been blaming iraq, and especially one of saddam's main people whom they have named "chemical ali".

Halabja chemical attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

but this wikipedia page also suspects iran of carrying out the halabja poison gas attack, and i quote...

Controversies
Allegations of Iranian involvement

The U.S. State Department, in the immediate aftermath of the incident, took the official position that Iran was partly to blame.[15]

-----> now, why only "partly blame" iran?? because from the very start, the usa government wanted to blame iraq... see next two quotes...

Joost Hiltermann, who was the principal researcher for Human Rights Watch between 1992–1994, conducted a two-year study of the massacre, including a field investigation in northern Iraq.

Hiltermann called these allegations "mere assertions" and added that "no persuasive evidence of the claim that Iran was the primary culprit was ever presented."[34] An investigation conducted by Dr Jean Pascal Zanders, Project Leader of the Chemical and Biological Warfare Project at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, into responsibility for the Halabja massacre also concluded in 2007 that Iraq was the culprit, and not Iran.[35]

-----> a. this hiltermann and "human rights watch" are the same people who made a case for western military invasion of libya and syria in 2011, and calls for regime-change in russia, and constant criticism of north korea... but why did this "human rights watch" not make a case against mullah iran ( an actually repressive state )?? why did they choose to blame saddam's iraq where ladies enjoyed freedoms that ladies in iran did not then, and do not now??

-----> b. the "stockholm international peace research institute" is the same "sipri" which lists western government giving weapons to khomenei iran all through the iran's war with iraq... what do you make of that??

2. your first link... "iran chamber society"...

this "society" seems to me a front for cia... just like two other organizations avaaz or ned... but this "society" now seems shut-down because its last article is from 2007... and i will say that it has been shut-down because its activities have been taken over by avaaz.

you will note three four in this society's articles... (a). criticism of marxism, which is their way of say "socialism", (b). most or all of the authors live in the usa, why not russia or cuba?? why usa??, (c). why do the articles take the usa government line??, (d). the articles don't talk of regime-change in iran, no "post-ayotallah scenario". there is no article here which is similar to "post-saddam iraq, post-bashar syria, post-gaddafi libya", why??.

i could point to more things...

The Iran-Contra affair proves the US has been playing with both sides and been supporting turmoil between two parties. Both were simply puppets made to keep the region under terror.

no... the western nations may have supplied some weapons to iraq but they wanted the end of the socialist baath government of iraq, which is why the western governments heavily armed khomenei iran.

and you may call saddam hussain many things, but you certainly cannot call him a "puppet".

A noble belief.

socialism is a noble belief worth changing one's life for... a truly communist society must arrive... and my innocent question to you is... if not a communist society, why should humanity exist in any other form society?? if not a communist society, let us end this stupid humanity then...

Unfortunately, under the barbarians who ruled the ME during that period would have been jailed. You'll notice, during the Communist Era in Russia, there was a great deal of time spent in jailing and discrediting the same intellectuals who fought side-by-side with the revolutionaries. Same goes with Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, almost every nation with a very strong socialist past.

i have spent eleven years in active socialism, most at personal level, some later years at level of world socialist activism... i don't know of any other person on this forum who has done that... you should trust my words... and not words of traitors like western government promoted so-called "heroes" like alexander solzhenitsyn or jung chang or dalai lama... these people are "useful idiots" who were used by western governments to create regime-change scenario in places like ussr or china... and one of hillary clinton's candidates for "post-gaddafi libya" government was abdul hakim belhaj whose lifg group was created in the 1980's as the usa government proxy against the libyan jamahiriya... the lifg tried to kill muammar... and some time before the 2011 nato invasion of libya, lifg merged with al qaeda... and post-2011, abdul hakim belhaj was placed as libya's "defence minister" by the usa government.

so again i ask, what will you believe??

my answer would be... my common sense.

 

[haman10]

OMG get a life already man !!

you are online 24/7 posting none sense shyte .

yeah we killed gaddafi and yeah he was your beloved leader .

but we did it just cause we had the power to do so !!

we did it cause we liked it .

how abt that ?

 

[Hiptullha]

so your own reference site also speaks of one method of western governments supplying armaments to the post-1979 iran government ( led by khomenei )... so which of those two articles will you believe?? i myself gave link to the sipri document which gives you a more detailed list of which western government supplied weapons to iran during the 1980-88 iran-iraq war... and primary among iran's supplier was israel.... so which article will you believe??

I agree, the US had been arming Iran but on a very limited scale. While Iraq did not receive aid from the US directly, it was done through private contractors who were operating with the CIA's full approval and shipments from other countries (France)

i have spent eleven years in active socialism, most at personal level, some later years at level of world socialist activism... i don't know of any other person on this forum who has done that... you should trust my words... and not words of traitors like western government promoted so-called "heroes" like alexander solzhenitsyn or jung chang or dalai lama... these people are "useful idiots" who were used by western governments to create regime-change scenario in places like ussr or china... and one of hillary clinton's candidates for "post-gaddafi libya" government was abdul hakim belhaj whose lifg group was created in the 1980's as the usa government proxy against the libyan jamahiriya... the lifg tried to kill muammar... and some time before the 2011 nato invasion of libya, lifg merged with al qaeda... and post-2011, abdul hakim belhaj was placed as libya's "defence minister" by the usa government.
so again i ask, what will you believe??
my answer would be... my common sense.

I think it's extremely silly to classify any opposing view as "Western promoted".
Rebels only gained support because of the way leaders act against them.

a. this hiltermann and "human rights watch" are the same people who made a case for western military invasion of libya and syria in 2011, and calls for regime-change in russia, and constant criticism of north korea... but why did this "human rights watch" not make a case against mullah iran ( an actually repressive state )?? why did they choose to blame saddam's iraq where ladies enjoyed freedoms that ladies in iran did not then, and do not now??

The case was not about how they treat their women or minorities, something which Saddam wasn't very good at either considering his views towards Kurds and Assyrians. It was about the allegations of the belief that Iran was involved in chemical attacks.
The book Hiltermann published on the Halabja Gas Attack was critical of the US Foreign Policy as well as Saddam's use of weapons.
I'm not sure about Hiltermann's early stance on the Civil War (you can provide a source), but from a quick search of some his writings, while the world was focused on Syria and Libya, he was discussing the Bahrain protests and Iraq. Human Rights Watch is Human Rights Watch, buddy. They're supposed to show the human rights abuses which were carried out by all sides.
Syria: Armed Opposition Groups Committing Abuses | Human Rights Watch
Syria: End Opposition Use of Torture, Executions | Human Rights Watch
http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/09/17/syria-end-opposition-use-torture-executions

no... the western nations may have supplied some weapons to iraq but they wanted the end of the socialist baath government of iraq, which is why the western governments heavily armed khomenei iran.
and you may call saddam hussain many things, but you certainly cannot call him a "puppet".

Saddam certainly wasn't an enemy of US interests. The thing is the United States does not have principles regarding their policy. They don't care who they negotiate with as long as it helps them in the end. When Saddam removed Abd al-Karim Qasim, the Kennedy Administration was completely aware and enthusiastic of the new regime.

 

[jamahir]

OMG get a life already man !!

you are online 24/7 posting none sense shyte .

yeah we killed gaddafi and yeah he was your beloved leader .

but we did it just cause we had the power to do so !!

we did it cause we liked it .

how abt that ?

simple question... what is the kind of world you want??

 

[jamahir]

agree, the US had been arming Iran but on a very limited scale

that is quite an under-statement.

something which Saddam wasn't very good at either considering his views towards Kurds and Assyrians.

the kurd, sultan salahuddin ayyubi, a hero of saddam... and i remember hearing somewhere or reading somewhere, the kurd nationalists ( pro-kurdistan ) had good dealings with the baathi iraqi government for quite many years... it is possible for the socialist origin "pkk" movement to have contacts with saddam's government... maybe @kurd123 and @Al-Kurdi can give us some info.

edit : and surely, from a socialist point of view, the baathi people ( socialist ) must have found the idea of "kurdistan" ( a nation for kurds ) quite silly... after all, there was no seperate iraq for sunni, shia, christian etc.

the christian and assyrian, tariq aziz ( mikhail yuhanna ), was the last deputy prime minister of independent iraq... baathi iraq.

Tariq Aziz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and see his strange connection to me...

"In 1963, he was editor of the newspaper Aj-Jamahir (al-Jamaheer) and al Thawra, the newspaper of the Ba'ath party.[8]"

i give you words about him and from him ( 2012 ) from a organization much more credible than any western main stream organization...

IRAQ: Tariq Aziz: “They Killed our Country. We are all Victims of Britain and America” | Global Research


-----> this is him...

“There is nothing here any more. Nothing. For thirty years Saddam built Iraq, and now it is destroyed. There are more sick than before, more hungry. The people don’t have services. People are being killed every day in the tens, if not hundreds. We are all victims of America and Britain. They killed our country.”

-----> this is about him...

"He talked of the Iraq, prior to the invasion, feeling vulnerable to Iran, the US and Britain. It was this feeling of vulnerability which led, for a long time to Iraq not saying categorically it had no weapons of mass destruction."

"Tariq Aziz has to be top of the list. The fiercely patriotic, nationalistic reminder of an illegally overthrown government, which, whatever else, had put Iraq first and poured the country’s oil revenues in to health- care, education, clean water, modern infrastructure, turning a beautiful, but run down “third world” country in to a “near first world” one, to use the West’s patronizing patois."

-----> this is him, again...

Further: “We are Arabs, we are Arab nationalists. We must be proud.”

-----> this is about him, again...

"A Christian, he is also reminder of the secular nature of the previous regime, in a country now riven with sectarian divides. “Divide and rule” played to murderous perfection. By 2006 half of Iraq’s Christians had fled the country fearing for their lives(ii), thousands more have fled since."

-----> this is his daughter, zainab...

“My father served his country for more than twenty two years. He delivered himself to the US Army (after the fall of Hussein) because he wasn’t afraid. He didn’t do anything wrong. He served his country,” Aziz’s daughter, Zainab Aziz, has said. “He has been wronged.”

-----> there is lot more in that article... and you know, there was a bbc world service radio report before 2003 about saddam, and i used to listen to bbc then... the report complained about saddam renovating ( in their words, "destroying" ) an ancient iraqi building... must have been assyrian, i don't remember exactly... and remember, it was the usa army tanks which destroyed those ancient iraqi buildings which stood there for thousands of years... it was the usa army assisting those looters to destroy iraqi mu

Human Rights Watch is Human Rights Watch, buddy. They're supposed to show the human rights abuses which were carried out by all sides.

it is the same cia-funded regime-change case-maker like "amnesty international" or "uno human rights commission"... your two hrw links are from 2012... march and after... by which time one whole year of al-qaeda/taliban/ikhwaan crimes had passed by... naturally, such crimes ( of whose photos, not allowed to be posted here )... such crimes could not be hidden any longer by bbc or al jazeera... so this "human rights watch" and the white house were "sad" when talking about events in syria... all white wash... why was "human rights watch" silent one whole year?? did the crimes in syria by the "opposition" occur on "planet 47" in the sirius star system??

Civil War

which "civil war" do we know in north africa or west asia or north asia?? i know invasion by 35+ milltaries of nato in case of libya... almost invasion by those same 35+ militaries in middle 2013 and present building up case for, both in syria... regime change in ukraine for ultimate goal of regime-change in russia... and in all cases, nato and their leader, usa government, first sent in criminals ( terrorists ) to create havoc... this is the third year of war in syria, and syria fights on...

he was discussing the Bahrain protests and Iraq.

same case as first paragraph... bahrain could not be hidden any longer... bahrain royal family ( monarchy, not democracy ) had sent their soldiers to fight in libya and syria, but bahrain itself was seeing protests by shia citizens... so, non-western news agencies were questioning the hypocrisy.

i didn't understand about the iraq part... what was hiltermann saying about iraq??

When Saddam removed Abd al-Karim Qasim, the Kennedy Administration was completely aware and enthusiastic of the new regime.

no... the usa government ( and british government ) was just waiting ( or hoping ) for instability in iraq... just like how hyenas will wait for two leopards to become tired after quarreling and then move in for the kill.

----

i will tell you a real story... a person saw the four-year-old iraqi girls and boys affected by the "depleted uranium shells" fired into iraq by the usa airforce and army... he himself has young children... he told me in a quiet voice... "what should one do with such children??"

you can see such children by googling "iraq children depleted uranium"... and remember, iraqi dead are 2+ million, how many irani mullahs did usa military kill??

----

above all, why are you so reluctant in respecting socialism??

 

[ResurgentIran]

No.