Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Unconfirmed: Huge explosion kills hundreds in central Tehran
DEBKAfile ^ | 4:09 PM (EDT)

Posted on 05/24/2015 1:56:32 PM PDT by Dave346

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 last
To: cynwoody; jimbo123; txhurl

I clicked on your link in #21 and said the page has been removed.

Does the building have a name or an address/location in Tehran?

Also, those photos (#s 21, 22, 13) do not look like Tehran, am sure.


81 posted on 05/24/2015 7:08:35 PM PDT by odds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...
Keep in mind that Debka reported an explosion in November 2011, that it was generally doubted, but turned out to have been true. The main problem with Debka is garbled details.

82 posted on 05/24/2015 7:09:59 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (What do we want? REGIME CHANGE! When do we want it? NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Dave346

Apparently there was a big explosion, reported on 22 May 2015, in a Tehran bazaar located in Khayyam street; the explosion was in a store stocking inflammable materials.

Link in Persian, including photos:

http://www.tabnak.ir/fa/news/502420/%D8%A2%D8%AA%D8%B4-%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B2%DB%8C-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%AA%D9%87%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86


83 posted on 05/24/2015 7:35:52 PM PDT by odds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: odds

inflammable


flamable


84 posted on 05/24/2015 8:07:22 PM PDT by txhurl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: txhurl

“inflammable”

adjective

1.easily set on fire.
“inflammable materials”

synonyms: flammable, combustible, incendiary, explosive; More

noun
1. a substance which is easily set on fire.


85 posted on 05/24/2015 8:09:53 PM PDT by odds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: txhurl

Either it flams or it doesn’t


86 posted on 05/24/2015 8:35:30 PM PDT by Mr. K (Palin/Cruz - to defeat HilLIARy/Warren)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: odds

I’m just keeping the thread bumped :-)


87 posted on 05/24/2015 8:53:32 PM PDT by txhurl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: txhurl

ok :-)

Regarding the word, I had to think twice about the meaning too before I posted. But was tempted to post it. ;-)

Just a general explanation (not to you), since I’m interested in linguistics, the prefix “in”, for “inflammable”, originates from Latin, and then French “en” (meaning on-flame).

So, the prefix “in” for “inflammable” is not a negative or an antonym; unlike, say, “consequential” and its opposite “inconsequential”.


88 posted on 05/24/2015 9:04:56 PM PDT by odds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: odds

Think back to the ‘90’s catastrophe of ‘flammable’ pajamas resulting in ‘unflammable’ materials.

But we can check our spray-cans for the warning ‘contents are flammable.’ So I defer :) But I choke on proper use of ‘was’ and ‘were’ a lot, too.

Napalm!


89 posted on 05/24/2015 9:16:15 PM PDT by txhurl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: txhurl

Yes.. Of course, there is no such official word as “unflammable”; it’s “nonflammable” (not burning or not burning easily, or not easily set on fire). Then again, for ‘real or intended’ meaning, linguists are taught to look for context as well.

I think the use of ‘was’ and ‘were’ (apart from whether we mean something in a singular form or plural) is often a difference between British english and American english; just an observation.


90 posted on 05/24/2015 9:26:57 PM PDT by odds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: CivilWarBrewing

El Capo. Must have been lots of their top nuke folks gathered up in one spot. BiBi just taking care of business.


91 posted on 05/24/2015 10:25:49 PM PDT by X-spurt (CRUZ missile - armed and ready.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas

Ali Shariati was one of the intellectual godfathers of the Revolution. He actually did try to merge Islam and Marxism, the terrorist group MeK is a legacy of it.


92 posted on 05/24/2015 10:31:30 PM PDT by Shadow44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Shadow44; St_Thomas_Aquinas

MeK has a long history in Iran, definitely before Ali Shariati. MeK over the decades also has reinvented itself a few times for how it *positions & sells* its ideology to people.

Both MeK and Ali Shariati are/were 100% followers of Islam First & Foremost; then tried to incorporate communist elements of *history & politics* with it (mostly that of Lenin). BUT, both subscribing to a ‘revolutionary Islamic approach’.

Ali Shariati (a hardcore Islamist who died in 1977) was of the belief that there is a “Red Islam” (in addition to black and green Islam - yes, colour-coded & mean different things). The colour meaning and symbolism also varies slightly between shi’ites & sunnis.

“Red Islam” term, however, never referred to “communism” (and was Not used in Soviet context); it referred to shia imams such as Hossein and Ali (pure shia 12ers Islam), who were revolutionaries in their time, fighting for & spreading their brand of Islam by blood (red).

That said, there are many mullahs/ayatollahs, including those within the current regime, who are either Leftist-Islamists (like Khamenei, the present Supreme Leader, who actually studied in the USSR), AND, there are Right-wing Islamists (such as Ahmadi-Nejad). Needless to say, both (factions) are atrocious & no good.


93 posted on 05/24/2015 11:24:06 PM PDT by odds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: RichInOC
کسی آنها را راه اندازی بمب
94 posted on 05/25/2015 3:37:23 PM PDT by RitchieAprile (Go Rangers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: RitchieAprile
هکتار هکتار هکتار هکتار ....
95 posted on 05/25/2015 9:44:30 PM PDT by RichInOC (We live in absurd times.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: odds
I clicked on your link in #21 and said the page has been removed.

That photo was found on Twitter, supposedly being of a building in Tehran belonging to Khamenei.

However, it's actually a photo of a building fire in Madrid in 2005. Someone pointed out that signage on the building (dimly visible in the photo) is in Spanish, not Farsi.

Chances are, whoever posted it to Twitter took it down after realizing that fact.

96 posted on 05/25/2015 11:23:55 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody

Thanks. Yes, the signage on the front building is in Spanish. Then again, not all tall buildings in Tehran have a signage in persian. Madrid sounds correct. A tall building owned by Khamenei, most likely, would be in northern parts of Tehran, and those trees are very uncommon in northern Tehran.


97 posted on 05/26/2015 5:01:58 PM PDT by odds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson