By chance I came across a post by Race Bannon back in JULY 2005 on a search for something else on the Internet and found the “debate” then was interesting and also involved a Freeper who was later banned.
Actually a dual identity person who posted as both as F14 Pilot and also as Khashayar, who presented a fictitious background story (including to Race Bannon and others) and in reality was suddenly infiltrated into Canada by the Mullahs.
His last known job at the time was for a Commander of the Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) in Iran.
He did not like Alan of AntiMullah, who was able to check him out and openly tries to discredit him on FR.
The post and resulting discussion is quite interesting and REMEMEMBER came about some SIX years ago.
Rather than being simply dated, it invites opinion / comments in the new current global enviromment.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1437203/posts?q=1&;page=1
Direct look at how Syrian dissidents are being handled by Iranian forces.
And video of some unusual animals
http://noiri.blogspot.com/2011/05/syrian-dissident-gets-handled.html
Thanks FARS:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2490938/posts?page=2128#2128
unrelated sidebar:
YouTube - Benazir Bhutto: Bin Laden was Murdered
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg
Thanks for the ping!
Many excuses were provided during George W Bush’s presidency for not taking military action (even imposing harsh sanctions) against the Mullahs’ regime. Notice I said “Mullahs’ regime”, not Iran. Especially post Saddam’s removal in Iraq in 2003. “Regime change Iran” became almost taboo in some quarters & by some “softly, softly” pro-mullah regime lobby grps & individuals.
During GWB’s second term in particular, I distinctly remember some of the more popular excuses, assumptions & generalitites about Iran (even by some on FR) being:
- military action would prompt Iranian people to join the regime against America
- it will hurt the Iranian people who are mostly pro-America
- we’ve to support pro-democracy movement in Iran (whatever that meant...)
- China & Russia would object to military action by the US & counter it
- we have to stabilize Iraq first (never mind that Mullahs’ regime has been instrumental in destabilizing Iraq so far & will continue from now on..)
- Iran is not Iraq (of course it isn’t - but in the context of military action against Mullahs’ regime, what was the point of trying to differentiate?!)
- MeK is an “anti-Iranian” terrorist group, Jundallah is another terrorist grp, some Kurdish grps are terrorists as well. Those Iranians who have leftist tendencies are really bad too. Mossadegh supporters are out of question, and some, to date, still haven’t given up on vilifying all the good that the Pahlavis did for Iran & Iranians, preferring to incessantly focus on Savak’s deeds, thereby accusing the Shah of being a dictator, a tyrant & what not. So, what’s or was left for ‘opposition’?? Talk about being divisive!
And then, suddenly, in 2007 (I think it was) the NIE report popped up! That seemed to be *the official* icing on the cake for not taking military action against the Mullahs’ regime.
Haven’t the Mullahs been the worst offenders in terms of bloodshed, executions, repression, economic mismanagement, international terrorism, poverty, maiming, raping, and so on.. for the past 32 yrs? Isn’t it still the case?
Begs the question why some who vehemently accuse/accused the abovementioned grps of terrorism & as being no good, view the terrorist mullahs’ regime (and its different shades) as more acceptable.
Unfortunately, just before the NIE report, I remember in 2007 (I think) the previous US administration granted a visa to Mullah Khatami to visit the US.. I also recall, when GWB was asked about it, he reportedly had said (I paraphrase): “I want to see what he has to say...”. At the time, I wondered, after some 28 yrs, how come it wasn’t clear what Mullahs such as Khatami had to say! So, what makes/made negotiating with or having dialogue with one set of terrorists i.e. regime figures acceptable, compared to other so-called “terrorist grps”??
Bizarrely, the same people who put forward all those excuses re Mullahs’ regime during GWB’s administration, did not do so for Saddam’s regime. Of course, since Obama admin., many of the same people have either kept quiet about and/or actually expressed the belief that getting rid of Mobarak, and bombing Libya under the banners of ‘people want democracy’ and it is ‘for humanitarian reasons’ was justified!! None, to my knowledge, UNlike with Iran, questioned who & what will or might replace Mobarak or Ghaddafi....
There is more, but suffice it to say that there is and has been inconsistencies galore....