It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ways of overthrowing the Iran regime

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Some Iranian opposition activists agree that the United States signaling to Iran in a decisive way that it wants regime change may embolden the internal opposition, as Reagan's labelling the Soviet Union "the Evil Empire" and calling on Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall may have emboldened dissidents to step up resistance to Soviet totalitarianism."

Case in point: A potential ally in the struggle for regime change in Iran is the loose network of NGOs, academic experts, and practitioners known variously as the nonviolent resistance network, or the strategic nonviolence movement. Based on the writings of Harvard political scientist Gene Sharp, the movement was instrumental in helping train the Serbian student group Otpor (Resistance) in techniques that enabled them to peacefully overthrow Milosevic. That struggle won the backing of the Clinton administration, and has been cited approvingly by Ledeen and other neoconservatives (despite their usual disdain for all things Clinton).

Source

An all out war and occupation of Iran is out of the question if the yanks cant sercue Iraq how will the deal with Iran?

Do you supply training and arms to the differnt factions in Iran?

I dont think peacefull protests will bring a regime nor do I think the country is collapsing at the seams like the Soviet Union did although I think North Korea is.
Of course the yanks could just nuke Irans WMDs site this is the best option because a regime change dosnt mean a democracy. The new regime might be on good terms with the USA but with in 10-20 years the regime will come back to haunt the USA. Anynew regime might not even start off on good with the USA.


[edit on 6-2-2005 by xpert11]




posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 10:11 PM
link   
I got a better question.

Why would i want the Iranian govornment overthrown, seeing how their only real beef is with Israel, and irritated by the west supporting it. And their govornment isnt as evil as you think. Sure, its a little backwards and too religous, but theres alot of evidence they have been lightening up a bit.

So I really dont see any real benefit in seeing a regime change, other than a benefit to Bush and Israel.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Well America has always been good at overthrowing Governments. They would probally use the same routine like they did In the philipines and the latin countries. Give money to the people so they can rebe simple as that.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Skadi, you're right. Why America wants to overthrow Iran's government, I have no idea.

I mean, Iran did tell the U.S. government to go screw themselves back in 1979 and onward, but that would be a totally different reason to fight Iran, would it not?



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Not to mention the 'demonic Iranian regime' the jewish owned western media keeps going on about, is an elected government, chosen by the people who, well you know, actually own the country. Iran is a republic, not some US implanted dictatorship like Iraq was. Policing the world is not what we pay the Bush Regime to do.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
Policing the world is not what we pay the Bush Regime to do.


thats a little extra bang for your buck that you get for free.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Skadi, you're right. Why America wants to overthrow Iran's government, I have no idea.

I mean, Iran did tell the U.S. government to go screw themselves back in 1979 and onward, but that would be a totally different reason to fight Iran, would it not?


I think one reason is that the USA wants to change the Iran regime is because the current regime dosnt meet Bushs naive view of democracy spreading thou out the middle east like melted butter.
The USA dosnt need another voice in the middle east after all the Iraqi government will tow the line or have the aid money needed cut off.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Why would i want the Iranian govornment overthrow, seeing how their only real beef is with Israel, and irritated by the west supporting it.

that is exactly why the u.s. will try to overhrown the goverment,
so that they can "install" their "democracy",
and increase control in the middle east even more.

and ofcourse protecting the poor israel.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I got a better question.

Why would i want the Iranian govornment overthrown, seeing how their only real beef is with Israel, and irritated by the west supporting it.


Not exactly correct there Skadi.
Iran is a Shia Muslim nation surrounded by Sunni Muslim states. There's as much dislike for it's neighbours (and vice versa) as there is for the West.
The problem is that Iran doesn't just sit there minding it's own business as many people believe. It has probably been the main instigator of trouble in the Middle East, meddling in the affairs of other soverign nations, forming, supplying and funding terrorist and subversive organisations. A lot of the organisations that it is involved with are not focussed on the West - they're more interested in bringing down the area's regimes.

Iran's neighbours are as worried as the West about a prospective nuclear capability and there is a history of bad blood. An often overlooked fact, but during the Iran-Iraq war, the Arab states funded the Iraqis. This was a war of agression that was started off by Saddam, yet the Middle East nations backed a country that only a few years later was to again invade one of their own. It was only because of this financial aid that the Iranians didn't pull off a victory. It's estimated that 1.5 million lives were lost during the war - most of them Iranian.

I don't propose that Iran would go to war with it's neighbours because of the Iran-Iraq war connection, but history shows that Tehran has as many problems with it's neighbours than it does with the West or Israel.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 09:36 AM
link   
maybe let them do it themselves, its their country, after all they already have



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 02:06 PM
link   
So I don't see how Iraq going to war with Iran makes Iran aggressors.


BTW, 1.5 million Iranians died thanks to Saddam, as opposed to just 350,000 Iraqi soldiers.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Simple.

Pass a law outlawing beards.




posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 04:41 PM
link   



Originally posted by Leveller
The problem is that Iran doesn't just sit there minding it's own business as many people believe. It has probably been the main instigator of trouble in the Middle East, meddling in the affairs of other soverign nations, forming, supplying and funding terrorist and subversive organisations. A lot of the organisations that it is involved with are not focussed on the West - they're more interested in bringing down the area's regimes.


Fighting the threats of the illegal zionist state of Israel is a concern for all muslims .
Zionism is danger on muslims and islam and it isn't just a matter of a piece of land to deal with it .
What you call "terrorist" groups fighting the israili occupation of Palestine since and before 1948 , are actually RESISTANCE that are defending themselves and aim to restore their land that was raped by the freak state of Israel that was rised on blood and massacres (ie : Massacre of Deir Yasin).

Supporting these resistance groups is a logical option to deal with the ideology of the zionist state that beleive in : "The borders of Israel are from Euphrates to the Nile" and "Wherever the foot of an israili steps , it will be his land" .

Why one would support or compassionate with an offensive and terrorist country like Israil that even jews don't support it .
There is no a religion or a humanitarian doctrine that can legalise what the zionists did and how the zionist state was arised .

The history of the Red Indians will not reoccure with the palestinians and other countries in the middle-east .






Originally posted by Leveller
Iran is a Shia Muslim nation surrounded by Sunni Muslim states. There's as much dislike for it's neighbours (and vice versa) as there is for the West.


Iran's neighbours are as worried as the West about a prospective nuclear capability and there is a history of bad blood. An often overlooked fact, but during the Iran-Iraq war, the Arab states funded the Iraqis. This was a war of agression that was started off by Saddam, yet the Middle East nations backed a country that only a few years later was to again invade one of their own. It was only because of this financial aid that the Iranians didn't pull off a victory. It's estimated that 1.5 million lives were lost during the war - most of them Iranian.

I don't propose that Iran would go to war with it's neighbours because of the Iran-Iraq war connection, but history shows that Tehran has as many problems with it's neighbours than it does with the West or Israel.

First , the biggest source of worry in the region that are worth to worry about are the 200 nuclear .s in Israel .

Second , the last thing that arabs have to worry about is the peaceful nuclear technologie in the hand of the shia iranians for these reasons :

- Its use will be in the peacefull domains . From shia islamic doctrine perespective , weapons of mass-destruction that kill the good and the bad are Haram = Taboo .

-It is in the core of the shia ideology that war is only permitted for self-defense (Difa'i Jihad) . The another form of Jihad named (Ibtida'i jihad) where muslims initiate a war , cannot be practiced by shias without the appearance of Imam Mahdi (pbuh) or without a direct danger that threats the very existance of islam (the case of Israil).

An Ayatullah will think millions of time before giving a fatwa on jihad , simply because if it isn't necessary , all the casualities , results and blood will be on his neck in the judgement day . The person who will follow his eronnous fatwa will be held responsible of his blood and the blood of his enemy .

These two fatwas for Imam Khamenei will clarify his islamic view for war :



Q 1066: If, supposedly, the preservation of the genuine Muhammadan Islam depends on shedding the blood of a person whose life is inviolate [muhtaram], is it permissible for one to commit such an act?

A: According to Islamic law, shedding the blood of a person whose life is inviolate, is forbidden and contradicts the rules of the genuine Islam of Prophet Muhammad (s). Therefore, it does not make sense to say that the preservation of the genuine Muhammadan Islam depends on killing an innocent person. But if what is meant is the mukallaf's (responsible adult) commitment to jihad in the way of God, the Almighty, and defence of the genuine Islam of Prophet Muhammad (s), in conditions in which he may be killed, the cases differ. If the mukallaf feels, on the basis of his judgment, that the very existence of Islam is in danger, it will be wajib (obligatory) on him to rise for its defence, even if there is fear of being killed.




Q 1062: What is the rule concerning the initiation of fighting [jihad ibtida'i] during the occultation of the Infallible Imam Mahdi (a.s)? Is it permissible for the qualified Islamic jurist faqih] possessing state power (the Leader or wali amr of Muslims) to order it?


A: The opinion which affirms the permissibility of such an order for the qualified Islamic jurist administering the affairs of Muslims, when he believes that expediency requires it; is not improbable. Rather it is the more well-founded [aqwa] of the opinions.


These two fatwas are based on similar hadith (narrations) like :



Related from Yunis who said: ‘I was with Imam al-Kaadhem (A) when a man asked the Imam (A): ‘One of your followers has heard that a man is giving out swords and bows in the way of Allah so he went to him and took a sword and a bow from him (not knowing the proper way in this matter). He then met some of his companions who told him that this was not allowed and ordered him to return them (the sword and the bow).

Imam al-Kaadhem (A) said: ‘Then let him do so.’

But he replied that he had sought the man but was unable to find him and he was told that the man had died.

Imam al-Kaadhem (A) said: ‘Then let him defend but not to fight.’

The man said: ‘and in places like Qazwin, or Ashkelon, or al-Daylam or other citadels?’

Imam al-Kaadhem (A) said: ‘Yes.’

The man said: ‘And if the enemy comes to where he is attached, what should he do?’

Imam al-Kaadhem said: ‘He should defend the territory of Islam.’

The man asked: ‘Should he fight jihad?’

Imam al-Kaadhem (A) said: ‘No, unless he fears for the safety of the territory of Islam.’

The man said: ‘Are you saying that if the Romans should enter upon the Muslims, they should not prevent them from doing so.’

Imam al-Kaadhem (A) said: "He should defend and if he should fear for the safety of Islam and the Muslims then he should fight and his fighting would be for himself (to protect his life, and those of other Muslims) and not for the government (of the time) for if Islam were to be obliterated then the reminder of Muhammad (S) would be obliterated."


and



Related that Imam Saadiq (A) was asked his opinion about a man who entered the land of war safely and then deluded a people who were subject to another people. He (A) said:

The Muslim should defend himself and fight to establish the rule of Allah and His Prophet. It is not allowed that he fight the unbelievers under the authority of a tyrannical rule (in a Muslim country) or their traditions.



Shia war is defensive and not offensive . So the people who are afraid from a shia attack , are those who are fighting muslims in the muslims' lands .




[edit on 7-2-2005 by XLEGIONS]



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
Simple.

Pass a law outlawing beards.



would outlawing rednecks fix america? you'd be in jail before the day is out.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Ways of overthrowing the Iranian regime?

This is easy:

1) Take control of Iranian airspace and start massive airdops of those little booze bottles they serve on the airlines.

2) Start beaming in massive amounts of pornography on every channel....MTV...The Realworld....VH1....NBA Basketball.

Our degenerate culture will rot their young minds from within and in 5 years we will be able to waltz right into Tehran as Persian babes line up on the streets wearing skin-tight Levi's.

Maximu§



[edit on 7-2-2005 by LA_Maximus]



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
Not to mention the 'demonic Iranian regime' the jewish owned western media keeps going on about, is an elected government, chosen by the people who, well you know, actually own the country. Iran is a republic, not some US implanted dictatorship like Iraq was. Policing the world is not what we pay the Bush Regime to do.


oh rubbish! Iranian regime has made a mockery of democracy and elections. They tightly control who is able to run for office. Iran is not owned by Iranian people but a bunch of rug . murderers who have no self respect and no respect for human rights or life!

people in Iran are being thrown in prisons everyday and get physically and psychologically tortured by regimes agents, with no right to a lawyer or any rights!

they lock people/ students/ reformers up in solitary confidments for months!

do some research before you open your mouth and spit our well ..... .

www.siahsepid.com...



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by zurvan
a bunch of rug . murderers...

Wow, what an insightful rebuttal.

Who the hell are we to tell them what government they can or can't have, IT"S THEIR COUNTRY. Are we so high and mighty as to be worthy of policing the entire world? Are the ideals of capitalism so honorable? Reality check here dude. The hypocrisy of the US Foriegn Policy is glaringly obvious to anyone who bothers to dig beneath the surface just a little. Do you think we don't control who can run for office here?Try applying for funds from the Elections Board and see what they say. Do you think our leaders are somehow endowed with some inherent respect for other nations or life? We have killed millions and millions of people through economic sanctions and wars. We throw people in prison, take their rights, and even send them other places to get tortured. We have detained people for decades. Would you like a long and bloody list of US involvement in the reigon? Would you like to try do deny the US funding of terrorist groups and regimes around the world, or can you maybe accept the fact that we don't have any business telling other cultures what or how to handle THEIR affairs. Iran has every right in the world to tell us to get bent. Saddam gassed Iranians with American made chemicals from American supplied crop spraying helicopters for crying outloud, and that kind of foriegn policy somehow makes us morally or culturally superior? I have done enough research to know that we are far from holier than thou art status. Iran is controlled by Iranians. They probably want to keep it that way, and honestly, I don't blame them. I sure as hell wouldn't want Israel's big brother sitting in my legislature if I were islamic, would you?



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 02:45 AM
link   
twitchy is right in some respects what Bush and his cronies forgot to mention that it was the USA who originally supplied Iraq with chemical that Iraq used to gas the Iranians.

Info

I also found a history of the Iran-Iraq war which has some relevance to this thread.
info

[edit on 8-2-2005 by xpert11]



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
Saddam gassed Iranians with American made chemicals from American supplied crop spraying helicopters for crying outloud, and that kind of foriegn policy somehow makes us morally or culturally superior?


What evidence do you have of this? The only thing I've been able to find says this is not true:



The UN report provides only negative evidence of the origin of the mustard gas sample. The absence in the sample analysed in Sweden and Switzerland of polysulphides and of more than a trace of sulphur indicates that it is not of past US-government manufacture, for all US mustard was made by the Levinstein process from ethylene and mixed sulphur chlorides. That process is also said to have been the one used by the USSR. From similar reasoning, British-made mustard, too, can probably be ruled out, even though substantial stocks were once held at British depots in the Middle East. For more positive evidence other sources of information must be used. Over the years since the mid-1960s quite a lot of information has been published purporting to describe Iraqi chemical weapons, but much of it is contradictory and all of it is of a reliability which SIPRI is in no position to judge. A major caveat must be entered: chemical warfare is such an emotive subject that it lends itself very readily to campaigns of disinformation and black propaganda, campaigns which the politics both of the Gulf War and of the current chemical-weapons negotiations have unquestionably stimulated to no small degree.

projects.sipri.se...


Saddam may have ordered precursor chemicals from U.S. as well as other foreign companies, but that hardly equates to the U.S. supplying him with chemical weapons.



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by zurvan
a bunch of rug . murderers...

Wow, what an insightful rebuttal.

Who the hell are we to tell them what government they can or can't have, IT"S THEIR COUNTRY. Are we so high and mighty as to be worthy of policing the entire world? Are the ideals of capitalism so honorable? Reality check here dude. The hypocrisy of the US Foriegn Policy is glaringly obvious to anyone who bothers to dig beneath the surface just a little. Do you think we don't control who can run for office here?Try applying for funds from the Elections Board and see what they say. Do you think our leaders are somehow endowed with some inherent respect for other nations or life? We have killed millions and millions of people through economic sanctions and wars. We throw people in prison, take their rights, and even send them other places to get tortured. We have detained people for decades. Would you like a long and b


First of all I am originally from Iran so maybe I am entitle to my opinion.
Iran according to US point of view had turned on them and was not an ally anymore so if they helped Iraq it does kinda make sense!

secondly Iran is not run by Iranians I tell you that again. The black turban mullahs that run Iran are not originally from Iran. They are originally Muslim refugees who kinda fled Arabia from Islam! ironic enough and came to Iran.

And it is kinda interesting Iranian government did attack US back then as well. You know you are right America might have done all the things you said but I think you are missing a small point being; they don't do it to Americans right? Iranian Government is doing this to Iranians! you see the differenc?

*mmm no reply


[edit on 8-2-2005 by zurvan]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join