Iranian Regime and Palestinian Nationalist ties to Nazism

[civman110]

Palestine:

Palestine was never a country and was never intended to be one. There was also no such thing as a Palestinian until Yassar Arafat. Palestine is what the Roman's re-named the territory after they invaded it and this name ceased to be used by Arab's for over 1000 years until after WWI when England named the territory Palestine (a territory not a country) then later broke it up into an Arab State (Trans-Jordan which has been renamed to Jordan) and a Jewish State (Israel).

The Palestinian Nationalist movement was founded by Hitler and Yassar Arafat's cousin (Haj Amin al-Husseini) who was a Nazi SS Solider and would later become the Mufti. He cooperated with Hiter and several high ranking Nazi officials. He is responsible for 1,000,000 deaths as the direct result of his decisions and was known for doing lovely things such as packing Jews into barns and setting the barn on fire with flamethrowers. He was also responsible for sending Jews to Auschwitz. This is where political Islam originates from and this is the same ideology that the current leadership in Iran adheres to except they deny the holocaust happened unless they are comparing Jews to Nazis then they believe it existed.

The Palestinians are the most well documented group of liars and racists on this planet.

Here is a BBC Documentary all about it: "Nazi Collaborators - The Grand Mufti"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy3aDIatrY0#t=293

The documentary is produced by Micheal Wadding.

His wikipedia page can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Wadding_(television)

And here is a list of everyone featured in the documentary:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2196883/


Iran:

In 1935, the shah of Iran, the father of the man deposed in 1979, was a Nazi sympathizer. During his reign he renamed his country Iran, which literally means “land of the Aryans.”

Later, that same shah welcomed Haj Mohammad Amin al-Husseini, the exiled grand mufti of Jerusalem, into the country. The mufti was on the run because of his pro-Nazi work and his efforts in attempting to bring the Jewish Holocaust to the Middle East. Al-Husseini would later go on to inspire and tutor Yasser Arafat. Arafat referred to al-Husseini as “uncle.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haj_Amin_al-Husseini

The Ayatollah Khomeini has said publicly that it would be acceptable to destroy Israel and kill all Jews.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...on-attack.html

Iran's political and military leaders have said that they would specifically target Israeli civilians in order to destroy all Jews.

"The article, written by Alireza Forghani, an analyst and a strategy specialist in Khamenei’s camp, now is being run on most state-owned sites, including the Revolutionary Guards’ Fars News Agency, showing that the regime endorses this doctrine."

"Under this pre-emptive defensive doctrine, several Ground Zero points of Israel must be destroyed and its people annihilated. Forghani cites the last census by the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics that shows Israel has a population of 7.5 million citizens of which a majority of 5.7 million are Jewish. Then it breaks down the districts with the highest concentration of Jewish people, indicating that three cities, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa, contain over 60 percent of the Jewish population that Iran could target with its Shahab 3 ballistic missiles, killing all its inhabitants.

Forghani suggests that Iran’s Sejil missile, which is a two-stage rocket with a trajectory and speed that make it impossible to intercept, should target such Israeli facilities as: the Rafael nuclear plant, which is the main nuclear engineering center of Israel; the Eilun nuclear plant; another Israeli reactor in Nebrin; and the Dimona reactor in the nuclear research center in Neqeb, the most critical nuclear reactor in Israel because it produces 90 percent enriched uranium for Israel’s nuclear weapons.

Other targets, according to the article, include airports and air force bases such as the Sedot Mikha Air Base, which contains Jericho ballistic missiles and is located southwest of the Tel Nof Air Base, where aircraft equipped with nuclear weapons are based. Secondary targets include power plants, sewage treatment facilities, energy resources, and transportation and communication infrastructures.

Finally, Forghani says, Shahab 3 and Ghadr missiles can target urban settlements until the Israelis are wiped out."

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/ayatollah-kill-all-jews-annihilate-israel/

And here's the video they ran on their state run TV:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwiadYT-N9k


The Muslim Brotherhood & The Mufti's Collaboration with Hitler:

Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1928 by a 22-year old Muslim named Hassan al-Banna, who admired Adolf Hitler's hatred of the Jews and persistently wrote to Hitler to express his admiration for Hitler, as well as his desire for collaboration with Hitler's Nazi Party.

During World War II, members of the Muslim Brotherhood spied for Hitler's Nazis in the Middle East and fought for Hitler as Nazi troops in two specially formed Muslim Waffen-SS Handschar Divisions ('Handschar' is German for scimitar, the curved saber used by the Muslim troops of the Ottoman empire).

Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and a close ally of al-Banna, in Berlin, where he lived as Hitler's VIP guest from 1941 to 1945, before joining al-Banna in Egypt in 1946. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood would follow al-Husseini's lead. Hitler's influence soon spread throughout the region, but it was not until 1937 that the Nazi government agreed to grant al-Husseini and the Muslim Brotherhood's request for financial and military assistance.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haj_Amin_al-Husseini
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassan_al-Banna
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood

The Nazis believed Islam was inherently a militaristic, expansionist, totalitarian and disciplinary religion. Adolf Hitler was recorded during a private meeting with Albert Speer and other Nazi officials to have said he wished Islam conquered Europe in place of Christianity, he then questioned why it was Christianity in "it's weakness and flimsiness". Adolf Hitler's ideologies were anti-materialistic, anti-consumerist, nationalistic, Communal and totalitarian, he believed Christianity was naturally incompatible with the majority of those ideals, considering it to be weak, soft and to be passive.

'According to Speer, Hitler stated in private, "The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"

Albert Speer also stated that when he was discussing with Hitler events which might have occurred had Islam absorbed Europe:
"Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire." '

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Speer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

Additional Information:

Six Days in June (The Six Day War - Israeli Victory): PBS: WGBH - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZYBUdzJuqI

Spoiler :

The Six-Day War also known as the June War, 1967 Arab - Israeli War, or Third Arab - Israeli War, was fought between June 5 and 10, 1967, by Israel and the neighboring states of Egypt (known at the time as the United Arab Republic), Jordan, and Syria. The war began on June 5 with Israel launching surprise strikes against Egyptian air-fields in response to the mobilisation of Egyptian forces on the Israeli border.

A period of high tension had preceded the war. In response to PLO sabotage acts against Israeli targets, Israel raided into the Jordanian-controlled West Bank and initiated flights over Syria, which ended with aerial clashes over Syrian territory, Syrian artillery attacks against Israeli civilian settlements in the vicinity of the border followed by Israeli responses against Syrian positions in the Golan Heights and encroachments of increasing intensity and frequency into the demilitarized zones along the Syrian border, and culminating in Egypt blocking the Straits of Tiran, deploying its troops near Israel's border, and ordering the evacuation of the U.N. buffer force from the Sinai Peninsula. Within six days, Israel had won a decisive land war. Israeli forces had taken control of the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria.

Directed by Ilan Ziv:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0957310/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm

Additional information about the documentary:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1033631/?ref_=nmbio_mbio

The 50 Years War - Israel and the Arabs: PBS - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1qISyLwuQE

Spoiler :

Leading statesmen, generals, terrorists and others who made the headlines in one of history's most bitter and enduring struggles tell the story of the Arab-Israeli conflict in The 50 Years War: Israel and the Arabs. Opening with the U.N decision to partition Palestine in 1947, the program charts the ensuing half-century of enmity, warfare, mediation and negotiation.

Among the current and former heads of state and prime ministers interviewed or featured in the series are Benjamin Netanyahu, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Shamir of Israel; King Hussein of Jordan; Yasir Arafat of the Palestine Authority; Hafez al-Assad of Syria; Jafaar Numeiry of Sudan; and U.S. Presidents Bill Clinton, George Bush and Jimmy Carter. Also appearing are foreign ministers, defense ministers, commanders in the field, heads of intelligence and guerrilla leaders, as well as high-ranking officials in the United States and the former Soviet Union.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If a grotesque simplification doesn't work in one thread, start another.

 

[civman110]

If a grotesque simplification doesn't work in one thread, start another.

People can read the links. They are all credible sources and documentaries.

The whole history of the origins of the Palestinian conflict is there in the BBC documentary (Nazi Collaborators - The Grand Mufti) and the PBS one (The 50 Years War).

I included a video that was aired on Iranian TV by the current regime, plus their own military and political doctrine towards Israel released by the government of Iran. Public statements made by Ayatollah Khomeini as well.

If you don't like a source I cited for any particular reason Google it and you'll find this same information everywhere from a wide variety of sources. It's all well documented.

 

[caketastydelish]

Iran literally translates to "land of the Aryans", that much is true.

You forgot to mention that "nazism" is less than 100 years old (I could be slightly off on that but thereabouts), whereas Iran is well over 2000 years old. Iranians have referred to themselves as Iranians for over 2000 years.

If anything Hitler got the "aryan" thing from Iran and not the other way around.

The Persians have a long history of being friends with the Jews, the best example of this is when they freed the Jews from Babylonian captivity.

Many of their new leaders are nutcases, that's why I personally strongly oppose the Islamic Republic of Iran, a pathetic excuse for a regime.

I wouldn't consider the WND, " is an American web site that publishes news and associated content from the perspective of U.S. conservatives and the political right." (straight off Wikipedia) to be a valid source.

The Ayatollah is a nutcase, nobody reasonable would deny that much. He is a bigot against Jews and a sexist against women but not completely stupid, he knows the consequences of actually nuking Israel.

Meanwhile Iran has been (falsely) accused of working on a nuclear bomb since the 1980's and to this day they do not have one, but they continue to be under overwhelming pressure because of too many people that read WND like yourself.

edit: his other source is dailymail (just as bad as WND in that regard) and the video he posted has over 50% dislikes rather than likes with almost everybody posting in the comment section to be quite revealing

 

[Ajidica]

I'm still laughing at him quoting The Daily Heil* in an effort to prove Iran is channeling a weird little Austrian with a Charlie Chaplain moustache.

*For a while the Daily Mail had strong fascist sympathies, with Mosely and the BUF IIRC.


EDIT: I don't think that documentary is by the BBC. The BBC watermark didn't show up anywhere (I don't recognize the watermark either), it isn't in the usual style of the BBC (generally the narrator is visible as opposed to a disembodied voice), the video description doesn't mention the BBC, and in the credits the BBC is not listed as a producer. (Indeed, it looks like the video is produced by two groups I've never heard of, WMR Productions and IMG Entertainment.) On WMR's Vimeo account, it lists the channels their programs have been shown on and does not list the BBC. IMG is a New York based media distribution agency.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Of course Iran is Fascist that's why Russia is sending nuclear tech ..... wait WAIT !
This will all end in tears.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

People can read the links. They are all credible sources include the BBC documentary and a video that was aired on Iranian TV by the current regime.

The question is, why should they bother? You have said nothing to make your claims relevant, or even interesting. I get it; you hate Iran and Palestinians. You want to stir up fear to justify extermination, so you have whipped out a can of Nazi paint. That doesn't take walls of text, links to barely related sources, and multiple threads to figure out.

But I doubt that you can make it work.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

EDIT: I don't think that documentary is by the BBC. The BBC watermark didn't show up anywhere (I don't recognize the watermark either), it isn't in the usual style of the BBC (generally the narrator is visible as opposed to a disembodied voice), the video description doesn't mention the BBC, and in the credits the BBC is not listed as a producer. (Indeed, it looks like the video is produced by two groups I've never heard of, WMR Productions and IMG Entertainment.) On WMR's Vimeo account, it lists the channels their programs have been shown on and does not list the BBC. IMG is a New York based media distribution agency.

Thanks for the prompt. WMR Productions is tied through their editorial staff to Rupert Murdoch. So what we have here is a "watch this link from a FauxNews source" disguised as the BBC and buffered through YouTube.

 

[civman110]

This will all end in tears.

Unfortunately, yes.

You would have to be crazy to give these people a state and a nuclear bomb considering their politics haven't changed since WWII and they still adhere to Nazi ideology and anti-Western sentiment. They also aren't shy about their hostilities either.

 

[Evie]

Oh, there are people I would trust even less with either a State or even the bomb.

Anyone who believe in the first post, for a start.

 

[civman110]

EDIT: I don't think that documentary is by the BBC.

Then you would be wrong.

The name of the documentary is called "The Birth of Israel" and it has the same narrator as their World at War Series and The Great War series. It also has the same background music.

The documentary is called "Nazi Collaborators - The Grand Mufti" and is produced by BBC and Micheal Wadding.

His wikipedia page can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Wadding_(television)

And here is a list of everyone featured in the documentary:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2196883/

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Then you would be wrong.

The name of the documentary is called "The Birth of Israel" and it has the same narrator as their World at War Series and The Great War series. It also has the same background music.

It's also already been identified as a product of a FauxNews company. If the BBC aired it I'm not terribly surprised, but that doesn't add enough credibility to change the basics.

 

[JollyRoger]

Still waiting on the top 10 lists since it apparently more documented than anything else in the world that the Palestinians are biggest racists and liars ever.

 

[civman110]

It's also already been identified as a product of a FauxNews company. If the BBC aired it I'm not terribly surprised, but that doesn't add enough credibility to change the basics.

No rational person considers BBC documentaries not to be credible.

Another good documentary is the 50 years war by PBS. Same information.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1qISyLwuQE

 

[caketastydelish]

No rational person considers BBC documentaries not to be credible.

Firstly, that's not even close to true. Second, if BBC documentaries are worthless then why advertise that your sources as BBC documentaries (which they actually weren't) in the first place?

 

[Axis Kast]

Most people take one of two positions.

Israel is bad because they took Palestinian land in 1948 and didn't give it back. The Palestinians use violence because they have no other option.

Most observers who believe that creation of a Jewish state in Palestine resulted in the unfair dispossession of former Palestinian landowners tend to view HAMAS and Hezbollah as freedom fighters, not terrorists. In short, they believe that the Palestinians have a right to use violence in pursuit of a homeland. They are inclined to forgive the Palestinians for attacking civilians because the Palestinians are weak, and unable to confront the Israeli military toe-to-toe. Civilian casualties are regrettable, but they are a feature of all wars. Just as ANC violence against white South Africans didn't retroactively legitimize apartheid, Palestinian violence against Israelis doesn't retroactively legitimize their second-class status.

While these people may not believe that HAMAS is an ideal or even an effective representative of Palestinian interests, they tend to take a negative view of Israeli security operations since Israel is the one that should be apologizing. In their view, Israel should not focus on fighting terrorism, but should (A) eliminate settlements and retire to the '48 borders, or (B) declare an end to the project of a Jewish state and announce the creation of a multi-ethnic democracy in which Palestinians can have full participation. In other words, Israel’s is the Original Sin, and the Palestinians’ behavior, while regrettable, is at least partially defensible. It is for Israel, not the Palestinians, to make the meaningful sacrifices to achieve a viable peace.

This view is usually predicated upon the sentiment that the Palestinian people were largely guiltless for the actions of their Arab neighbors and community leaders during the early days of Israeli independence. In point of fact, they hold the British most to blame, but seeing as the British are gone and the Israelis are strong, they fault the latter for failing to identify a workable solution. The Israelis must take the high road, just like the older brother in any sibling rivalry. The strong do not hit the weak, even when provoked.

According to this view, HAMAS, while awful, is merely the inevitable cancer that Israel brought about through years of chain smoking (occupation and settlement-building). Israel's steady march rightward and taste for settlement-building only serve to strengthen allegations that it is a settler state in the mold of apartheid-era South Africa and Rhodesia, where Jews live large at the expense of Palestinian Arabs. This apologetic view of HAMAS also tends to downplay the group’s anti-Semitic rhetoric as entirely the result of misplaced grievance over the loss of land and dignity, not a genuine desire to kill all Jews arising from some mass cultural, religious, or historical defect. Wild conspiracy theories about Jews and Americans are simply byproducts of alienation from power. The idea is that, were Israel more accommodating, there would be less outage, and therefore HAMAS would make fewer politically incorrect remarks about Jews. American liberals who fault Israel seem to believe either (A) that HAMAS has a set of political objectives that actually fall well short of the total annihilation of Israel, or else (B) that it is still too early in the hoped-for journey toward peace to start worrying about who is in the driver's seat of the Palestinian cause.

Western critics of Israel believe that neither Tel Aviv nor Washington have ever made sufficient concessions for peace. De-militarizing the Gaza Strip? That's like moving into my house only to one day announce that I can have a go in the sandbox. You can't expect me to be grateful, much less satisfied.

Usually people who take this position feel that Israel is a historical mistake -- the attempts of misguided people to "give" one group of folks a homeland even at the expense of others. If we went around doing that for everyone, the whole world would just be a mess. Besides, the Israelis, as the far stronger party, should take the high road, just like the older brother in any sibling rivalry. The strong do not hit the weak, even when provoked.

This side is also very troubled by accusations of anti-Semitism because they distinguish between Jews generally and the Israeli government and state, specifically. They don't like the idea that anybody who says bad things about Israel or Zionism should be accused of anti-Semitism. Ranting about Israel is good and, more importantly, useful because Israel is a democracy that can choose to change. It's useless to rant about Syria or Iraq, where there is no hope that the parties will one day have a change of heart. This is the reason why so much time and energy are spent excoriating the Israelis rather than other, "worse" perpetrators of abuse.

Then there is the opposing view...

Israel is good because they are like us. The Palestinians are bad because they have chosen violence and hate.

American conservatives who praise Israel doubt that HAMAS really has any goals short of genocide and are therefore unconcerned with Israel's failure to make concessions. After all, you can't negotiate with madmen. Instead, Israel's defenders argue that Israel's reaction to HAMAS is no different than the U.S. reaction to 9/11: "They hit us at home, so we hit them at home. We're very sorry that civilians died in the process, but we did our best to limit their suffering."

Most observers who favor Israel regard the Palestinians as an unfortunate minority that lost rightful claim to their land when they invited their Arab neighbors to come and destroy Israel for them. These observers believe that the Palestinians need to accept the tough lesson that, sometimes, there are historical losers and that the best medicine is just to move on and forget the past, including sixty-year-old grievances that may or may not be legitimate. This attitude is generally consistent with the conservative belief that one's circumstances are usually of one's own making. It also reflects a Realist view of international affairs in which there is no morality. The facts on the ground indicate that Israel is the victory, and to the victor goes the spoils.

Israel's post-1948 conquest of territory is either valid on the face of it (because might makes right in a tough world), or because that territory was acquired through wars of self-defense, which are inherently OK. Britain, not Israel, was the original cause of the problem (it promised both Jews and Arabs a state in Palestine but couldn't deliver). Still, it is hardly productive to rehash such an old and difficult problem. We must accede to reality, and the reality is that Israel, like every other nation-state in the world today, has an ugly past in which some people were winners, and others losers. (Nobody cries anymore for the Sioux or the Romans, after all; they just faded away.) The Palestinians are simply thick-headed. If they do not vote into office politicians willing to make the bitter concessions that history and fickle friends have forced on them, then they will pay the price, which is war.

Israelis are good! They helped us fight Soviet-backed expansion in the Middle East and they don't cheer when Americans die, which is, however crude, a fairly good indicator of who your friends are. Why do Americans insist on trying to extend olive branches to people who only wish us ill?

Israelis look like us. Palestinians don't look like us; they are dark-skinned. They speak Arabic, whereas Jews often sound like us. They have a religion with which many of us, and especially out political classes, are intimately familiar (Judaism). Palestinians believe in Islam, which is increasingly suspect. While we understand the Palestinian claim to a state in the same theoretical terms that we regard the desire for a Kurdish or an Armenian state, the West understands the Jewish claim much more intensely because it is seen through the prism of the Holocaust.

These people think that the Israelis have made some significant sacrifices, leaving Lebanon and giving up Gaza, without seeing any benefit. Instead of wondering how they could keep Israel at the table and working on compromise, the Palestinians simply declared that nothing would ever be good enough.

This perspective takes each skirmish and subsequent escalation on its own merits. Here, HAMAS is to blame because immediate hostilities can be traced back to the murder of three Israeli teenagers. Whereas some claim that the murders were carried out by a splinter group not loyal to the original HAMAS, this view discounts that defense, either because guilt-by-association is an inherent hazard of being a terrorist "bad guy," or because HAMAS’s claim to sovereignty makes it implicitly guilty of all violence carried out in the name of Palestinians even when it cannot enforce its own monopoly on violence. (This is a view of juridical legitimacy carried over from the Treaty of Westphalia in 1848, which contended that a prince who wishes to be respected as paramount leader must restrain his subjects from independently making war on his neighbors.) For persons who feel this way, Israel's increasingly right-wing political tilt and settlement-building are rarely considered, let alone mentioned, and are, at best, regrettable. The real issue is that the Palestinians are different from us and blow things up, which seems a lot like what other bad people do.

Conservatives are suspicious of people who get upset about Israel's "bad behavior." Why don't these same people get upset when Bashir al-Assad kills 5,000 Syrians in a week? Why don't they cry about the crimes of the ISIS in Iraq? Just as liberals see naive racism when conservatives complain about how white people suffer from Affirmative Action, conservatives see poorly-concealed anti-Semitism when liberals rant about Israel louder and longer than they rant about other stuff.

 

[JollyRoger]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=21

 

[civman110]

Firstly, that's not even close to true. Second, if BBC documentaries are worthless then why advertise that your sources as BBC documentaries (which they actually weren't) in the first place?

I said no rational person considers BBC documentaries NOT to be credible.

BBC is a credible source. Also Michael Wadding has done other documentaries for BBC on the Nazis and the Nuremberg Trials. He is quite qualified on that subject.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No rational person considers BBC documentaries not to be credible.

BBC, like everyone else in the broadcasting business, has air time to fill. The production company responsible for your source is listed in the closing credits. Their editorial staff and affiliation with Rupert Murdoch's FauxNews is readily identifiable with five minutes and Google. It takes more than 'aired by BBC' to blow away that stench.

Not that any of this has any relevance anyway. The whole "well, seventy years ago they resisted the British at the same time WW2 was going on so that makes them Nazis" logic has no merit. You may as well say "America fought the Germans at the same time as the Soviets, so the US is a communist country." The conclusion you are trying to support is not helped by this bit of wild historical extrapolation...even if your source wasn't lame to begin with.

 

[civman110]

BBC, like everyone else in the broadcasting business, has air time to fill. The production company responsible for your source is listed in the closing credits. Their editorial staff and affiliation with Rupert Murdoch's FauxNews is readily identifiable with five minutes and Google. It takes more than 'aired by BBC' to blow away that stench.

Where's your evidence of this connection then? and your evidence that these sources are not credible?

I have also provided evidence from a wide variety sources. Just because you happen to disagree with the content of one of those sources does not mean they are not credible. There is no question that this is a BBC film. Also FOX News is a reliable source, so much so that people would laugh in your face at the suggestion that it is not (especially based on no evidence whatsoever). FOX News has a higher viewership than all other news networks combined in the United States and is highly regarded. BBC and FOX News are two of the largest media companies in the world.

Seems to me that the deny and deflection crew is in full force. None of which have provided any evidence to back up their crazy claims and conspiracy theories whatsoever. I have provided 3 documentaries from different sources that are widely considered reliable, as well as links to several web pages and information with video that was released by the regime in Iran.

I find it laughable that anyone would try and discredit these sources.