Nuclear deal reached with Iran!

[Kaitzilla]

Being "Anti-Supreme-Leader" carries the death penalty. This guy believes that being anti-annihilation-of-Israel qualifies. If you have an example of someone being executed by the Iranian state for saying that Israel shouldn't be destroyed, could you post it please?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habib_Elghanian

Or maybe this guy
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/tabid/178/nid/22966/language/en-US/Default.aspx

The international community was furious when it learned that Iran was going to execute a young man for converting to Christianity and wanting to start a church. So Iran on Sunday altered the charges and said it is instead going to execute Youcef Nadarkhani because, among other things, he loves Israel.

Nadarkhani was arrested and convicted in 2010. Legal documents obtained by CNN accused Nadarkhani of "turning his back on Islam, the greatest religion..."

In Iran, the punishment for apostacy is death.

But with pressure mounting for Iran to cease its brutal repression of religious freedom, Gholomali Rezvani, the deputy governor of Nadarkhani's home province, announced that the charges had been changed.

"His crime is not, as some claim, converting others to Christianity. He is guilty of security-related crimes," Rezvani told the Fars news agency.

And what kind of security-related crimes had Nadarkhani committed? He "is a Zionist," declared Rezvani.

I also recall Ahmadinejad saying Israel should be "wiped off the map".
What he meant seems pretty clear.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/26/world/africa/26iht-iran.html?_r=0

 

[Tahuti]

There are 32 countries which don't recognize Israel. And Israel doesn't recognize Iran, just like 83 other countries.

And what proof do you offer that they tried to be "friendly" with Iran while the US government was supporting Iraq during the very same war?

You might want to check this wikipedia article. The article itself contains several sources, including one from a thinktank that is quite critical of Israel. Bottomline is that Israel invested a significant amount of effort in getting along with Iran in the 1980s, while most of its allies, including the USA supported Saddam Hussein.

Again, what utter nonsense. Even Ahmadinejad made it quite clear that he thinks Israel should exist, but as a country which accepts all its citizens as equals and who can live together in harmony, including the Jews. How abominable can you possibly get?

You take rethoric too much at face-value. You're not going to believe Bush either when he said that Saddam Hussein's lack of democracy was a valid reason to overthrow in spite of his lack of chemical weapons, which was the initial casus belli?

That was the excuse commonly used to overthrow their completely legitimate sovereign democracy and install a puppet military dictator in its place.

But I wouldn't support something like Operation Ajax, so I don't see how this is relevant at all.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Or maybe this guy
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/tabid/178/nid/22966/language/en-US/Default.aspx

You mean the guy who was released on January 7, 2013 and is apparently now a free man?

You might want to check this wikipedia article.

Ah yes, as part of the Iran-Contra scandal?

You take rethoric too much at face-value. You're not going to believe Bush either when he said that Saddam Hussein's lack of democracy was a valid reason to overthrow in spite of his lack of chemical weapons, which was the initial casus belli?

Why should anybody "believe" that unmitiged drivel when it was quite obvious that many conservatives tried to push for the invasion and occupation of a sovereign country as soon as the first Gulf War ended?

But I wouldn't support something like Operation Ajax, so I don't see how this is relevant at all.

It is the very reason why we are now in the position we are in regard to Iranian foreign policy. Or actually the near complete lack thereof ever since 1979.

But why should we let actual history get in the way of your own hyperbolic "rethoric"?

 

[Kaitzilla]

You mean the guy who was released on January 7, 2013 and is apparently now a free man?

Oh nice! Maybe Iran really is turning over a new leaf.

 

[Borachio]

I also recall Ahmadinejad saying Israel should be "wiped off the map".
What he meant seems pretty clear.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/26/world/africa/26iht-iran.html?_r=0

*sigh*

I sometimes wonder why I bother. Perhaps you missed my post below?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#.22Wiped_off_the_map.22_controversy

It's an interesting case. But since the mistranslation originated with the Islamic Republic News Agency, perhaps they've only themselves to blame.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Oh nice! Maybe Iran really is turning over a new leaf.

Or they aren't nearly as "evil" as many continue to try to make them out to be.

More details on your first guy from above:

Elghanian was the first Jewish person executed during the Iranian Revolution. His death on charges of spying for Israel, fundraising for Israel, and “friendship with the enemies of God” for having met with Israeli politicians, greatly alarmed Iran’s Jewish community: many fled the country, something Elghanian had pointedly refused to contemplate.

Though Elghanian allegedly claimed not to be a Zionist, he had investments and contacts in Israel — and a radio denunciation made clear to what extent such an association would be anathematized going forward.

He was a disgrace to the Jews in this country. He was an individual who wished to equate Jewry with Zionism … the mass of information he kept sending to Israel, his actions to achieve Israel’s designs, the colossal sum of foreign exchange and funds he kept transferring to Israel; these are only samples of his antinational actions; these were the acts used to crush our Palestinian brethren. (Source)

Weirdly, this execution has made news more recently: the Stuxnet computer worm, which is widely thought to have been engineered in Israel to attack Iran, contains the string 19790509. It’s been hypothesized that this apparent reference to May 9, 1979 might allude to Elghanian’s execution.

While I certainly don't think that people should be executed for espionage without a fair trial, it certainly appears that Elghanian should have fled while he had the chance.

*sigh*

I sometimes wonder why I bother. Perhaps you missed my post below?

Yeah. I know. It doesn't really seem to matter how many times it is posted in this forum that it has been completely debunked. I have done so 4 or 5 times already myself.

 

[Tahuti]

Ah yes, as part of the Iran-Contra scandal?

Yes and no. However, Israel's interaction with Iran would have still happened regardless of the Iran-Contra affair: It has to be noted that at the time, Israel had a much stronger desire to establish friendly diplomatic relations with Iran than the USA had.

Why should anybody "believe" that unmitiged drivel when it was quite obvious that many conservatives tried to push for the invasion and occupation of a sovereign country as soon as the first Gulf War ended?

No one, that's exactly my point.

It is the very reason why we are now in the position we are in regard to Iranian foreign policy. Or actually the near complete lack thereof ever since 1979.

I tend to agree with you here, but not entirely. The next policy screw up around Iran came with Jimmy Carter: While he refused to back the Shah, allowing for his deposal, he also failed to disassociate from the Shah to the full extent possible. Thus, the USA was stuck in the middle in regards to Iran. Then the US supported Saddam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran war. After that, Iran existed just as much as Atlantis in the US mindset until it turned out suddenly it was developing nuclear technology. So Operation Ajax played a role in creating the current state of affairs, but it was not the only thing. Not by a long shot.

 

[Thedrin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habib_Elghanian

It's not clear that he was executed simply for thinking that Israel shouldn't be destroyed. The list of charges which were brought against him are as follows:

"corruption", "contacts with Israel and Zionism", "friendship with the enemies of God", "warring with God and his emissaries", and "economic imperialism"

Thinking that Israel shouldn't be destroyed isn't in that list. Don't get me wrong on this; I don't doubt for a second that he believed that Israel shouldn't be destroyed, but I do not believe that that is why he was executed.

Or maybe this guy
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/tabid/178/nid/22966/language/en-US/Default.aspx

Never faced charges relating to Israel. Charges were apostacy, evangelising Muslims, rape, extortion. The charge of being a Zionist was never razed in court (or if it was, it was never ruled on).

I also recall Ahmadinejad saying Israel should be "wiped off the map".
What he meant seems pretty clear.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/26/world/africa/26iht-iran.html?_r=0

Actually that quote is quite contentious. It's already come up in this thread. I beleive it's Boracho who posted the article in this thread about the questionable translation.

But in relation to the statement that I questioned from your previous post, even if the quote is as clear as you believe, it still doesn't say that someone will be executed in Iran simply for thinking that Israel shouldn't be destroyed.

From your previous post
Inside Iran, saying Israel shouldn't be annihilated carries the death penalty.

An extraordinary claim. Please provide evidence that it is true.

 

[Mouthwash]

Watching Formy's hasty generalizations is amusing.

Nice thread derail, btw.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Yes and no.

There is no "yes and no" about it. The only reason that Israel intervened was due to their own massively corrupt and criminally dishonest crony asking for their aid in this matter.
.

I tend to agree with you here, but not entirely.

Then you certainly shouldn't bring Jimmy Carter into this. That is just as hyperbolic and nonsensical as much of the rest of your rhetoric in regard to Israel.

 

[Tahuti]

There is no "yes and no" about it. The only reason that Israel intervened was due to their own massively corrupt and dishonest crony asking for their aid in this matter.

Israel saw Iran as potential strategic ally against Saddam Hussein. The Iran-Contra affair was largely coincidential to this.

Then you certainly shouldn't bring Jimmy Carter into this. That is just as hyperbolic and nonsensical as much of the rest of your rhetoric.

Does not follow.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Israel saw Iran as potential strategic ally against Saddam Hussein. The Iran-Contra affair was largely coincidential to this.

That flies in the face of the known facts.

Iranian–Israeli relations can be divided into four major phases: composing period between 1947-1953, friendly period during the era of the Pahlavi dynasty, worsening period since the 1979 Iranian Revolution to 1990, and finally hostility since the end of the First Gulf War. In 1947, Iran was among 13 countries that voted against the UN Partition Plan for Palestine. Two years later, Iran also voted against Israel's admission to the United Nations, and showed tacit solidarity with the Arab states during the 1948 Palestine war. Nevertheless, Iran was the second Muslim-majority country to recognize Israel as a sovereign nation after Turkey. After the 1953 coup d'état, which brought pro-Western Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to power, relations between the two countries significantly improved. After the 1979 Revolution, Iran severed all diplomatic and commercial ties with Israel, and its government does not recognize the legitimacy of Israel as a state.

Jewish Virtual Library: The Iran-Contra Affair

According to the Report of the Congressional Committees Investigating the Iran-Contra Affair issued in November 1987, the sale of U.S. arms to Iran through Israel began in the summer of 1985, after receiving the approval of President Reagan. The report shows that Israel's involvement was stimulated by separate overtures in 1985 from Iranian arms merchant Manucher Ghorbanifar and National Security Council (NSC) consultant Michael Ledeen, the latter working for National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane. When Ledeen asked Prime Minister Shimon Peres for assistance, the Israeli leader agreed to sell weapons to Iran at America's behest, providing the sale had high-level U.S. approval.

Before the Israelis would participate, says the report, they demanded "a clear, express and binding consent by the U.S. Government." McFarlane told the Congressional committee he first received President Reagan's approval in July 1985. In August, Reagan again orally authorized the first sale of weapons to Iran, over the objections of Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and Secretary of State George Shultz. Because of that deal, Rev. Benjamin Weir, held captive in Lebanon for 16 months, was released.

When a shipment of HAWK missiles was proposed in November of that year, Israeli Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin again demanded specific U.S. approval. According to McFarlane, the President agreed.

By December 1985, the President had decided future sales to the Iranians would come directly from U.S. supplies.

Does not follow.

This is just a rehash of propaganda prepetuated by the American Thinker .

 

[Mouthwash]

That flies in the face of the known facts.



Jewish Virtual Library: The Iran-Contra Affair



This is just a rehash of propaganda prepetuated by the American Thinker .

Formaldehyde just cited Wikipedia and the Jewish Virtual Library.

Such 'facts.'

 

[KmDubya]

Back on the topic of the deal with Iran, what did we get out of it?

Iran gets:
1.) Relief from the economic sanctions.
2.) Assets are unfrozen
3.) Keeps all of its centrifuges
4.) Continues to enrich Uranium
5.) Has the capacity to enrich to weapons grade if they choose to in violation of the agreement.

US gets:
1.) Iran's promise to not enrich past a certain percentage
2.) Iran's promise to dilute the enriched Uranium that is at too high of a percentage

What could possibly go wrong?

Once the sanctions are lifted good luck reinstating them, there is way too much money involved for corporations and governments to allow that to happen.

If Iran keeps its word it gets huge benefit to its economy and can produce weapons grade Uranium in a short time frame. You need a lot of low grade material to be able to enrich enough high grade for a weapon. The agreement lets Iran continue to make low grade material.

If this is all a ploy by Iran they get the sanctions lifted and get to produce a weapon. Possession of a nuclear weapon would allow them to end Israel whom they have termed a "one bomb state" either directly or via one of their terrorist proxies. It would allow them to blackmail all of the neighboring countries. It would allow them to threaten the US directly. To protect themselves the other countries in the area would need to produce their own nuclear weapons.

I sincerely hope that I am wrong and am just being paranoid about the peaceful intentions of Iran, but if I am not then this could lead to the deaths of millions. Why should the world have to gamble on the good intentions of Iran when if they had held firm they could have gotten real concessions that would not have depended on Iran's trustworthiness.

 

[Mouthwash]

Back on the topic of the deal with Iran, what did we get out of it?

Iran gets:
1.) Relief from the economic sanctions.
2.) Assets are unfrozen
3.) Keeps all of its centrifuges
4.) Continues to enrich Uranium
5.) Has the capacity to enrich to weapons grade if they choose to in violation of the agreement.

US gets:
1.) Iran's promise to not enrich past a certain percentage
2.) Iran's promise to dilute the enriched Uranium that is at too high of a percentage

What could possibly go wrong?

I don't think that's all the US gets, but I'm too tried to recall right now.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Formaldehyde just cited Wikipedia and the Jewish Virtual Library.

Such 'facts.'

You mean you have yet again failed to show even one of the facts is inaccurate or incorrect?

 

[Mouthwash]

You mean you have yet again failed to show even one of the facts is inaccurate or incorrect?

I'm not interested in the discussion. I just find it hilarious. Even I, a haughty Zionist, consider the JVL to be a shoddy pro-Israel propaganda outlet.

 

[Tahuti]

That flies in the face of the known facts.

So your refutation of the statement that Israel saw Iran as a potential ally in the 1980s is that Iran sees Israel as an enemy? That doesn't make any sense at all.

This is just a rehash of propaganda prepetuated by the American Thinker .

I do not care about who happens to reach the same conclusions about Jimmy Carter as I do, for reaching the same conclusions about Jimmy Carter as I do, or which arguments have been used, or the possible revalation that those who despise Jimmy Carter have a tendency to like jerking off, smoking weed, sniffing coke, tend to be worse in getting women, better in getting women, tend to be Pro-Palestine, Neo-Nazis, Pro-Israel, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, Anti-Globalists, Neo-Fascists, Paleoconservatives, Muslims, Jews or Christians or tend to like POLANDBALL cartoons, tend to like Cow and Chicken or tend to like New York Pizza or Falafal stands.

In short, I do not care. Period.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I'm not interested in the discussion. I just find it hilarious. Even I, a haughty Zionist, consider the JVL to be a shoddy pro-Israel propaganda outlet.

So you are just trolling again and even fully admit it.

This particular "shoddy pro-Israel propaganda" is essentially no different from any other account of what occurred during the Iran-Contra debacle. It contains basically the very same facts as the rest of the accounts including Wikipedia.

So your refutation of the statement that Israel saw Iran as a potential ally in the 1980s is that Iran sees Israel as an enemy? That doesn't make any sense at all.

If anything, Israel certainly didn't see them as an "ally". They saw it as a way to destroy two countries they perceived as being enemies by having them fight each other for as long as possible. That is if you believe the reports that apparently came from one person alleging this "secret" support they provided to Iran.

And trying to blame Jimmy Carter for what eventually had to occur in Iran due to completely inept US foreign policy decisions for decades is beyond absurd. You might was well try to blame him for the weather or the global economy.

Jimmy Carter was an oddity in American politics. He became president because he was the candidate who was the furthest removed from either political party due to fallout from Watergate. As a result, he had virtually no political power at all. But he has subsequently become the scapegoat of many Republicans for just about anything that went wrong during the late 70s through the 80s.

 

[Borachio]

I don't think that's all the US gets, but I'm too tried to recall right now.

Could it be something to do with lower global oil prices?

The relaxing of tension in the Persian gulf?

That sort of thing?