It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Iranian Group No Longer Wants A Totalitarian Regime

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on May, 5 2005 @ 06:00 AM
This "opposition group" is NOT a domestic opposition group working from inside Iran. This is the work of exile monarchists backed by Israel and some U.S. elements. The vast majority of Iranians both inside and outside of Iran do not support these kind of groups, and ridicule them. I know because I have been an active supporter of them in the past before I opened up my eyes to reality.

Furthermore, what kind of "democrats" are they that they speak on behalf of 70 million Iranians? I am one of the 70 million Iranians whom they have taken themselves the freedom to speak on behalf of.

Are you so naive that you think that a letter like this should prove anything? Anyone could write a letter like this - It doesn't mean anything and doesn't carry any weight.

Although many Iranians - possibly most - do want changes like less power to the conservative religious elements within the establishment, they do not want the thieves of the past to regain power so that they once again can rob the Iranian nation of their national wealth, and in the process enrich the U.S. --

Iranians didn't sacrifice their lives in the revolution of 1979 so that these kind of selfish and corrupt people could one day in the future make a comeback with their repressive and unjust puppet rule.

The majority of Iranians want GRADUAL change, and change from WITHIN Iran and the establishment. They have no desire whatsover to see such people like the group which wrote this letter regain power in Iran, and they certainly do not want any American or Israeli backed groups to even have any kind of presence in Iran.

[edit on 5-5-2005 by Siroos]

[edit on 5-5-2005 by Siroos]

posted on May, 5 2005 @ 06:07 AM

Originally posted by AceOfBase
At least these Iran of Tomorrow people look Iranian.

I thought this group worked from WITHIN Iran...... All these people in the pictures reside outside of Iran - Most of them, if not all, in the U.S. -- See, I was right! Very few people in Iran would ever support these U.S. puppets.

posted on May, 5 2005 @ 06:30 AM

Originally posted by cjf
The above group is/has been having difficulty getting the Iranian silent majority to stand up and do something to begin the changes necessary to reach a more democratic styled regime. Currently not allowing international inspectors to monitor the June election is causing an internal riff as is the possibility of UN sanctions according to the mentioned site and a few others.

Iran is a sovereign nation - Why should we have international inspectors monitor our elections? The U.S. is the country that needs to have international inspectors monitor its elections - with the fiasco of rigged elections in 2000, and with all the organized harassment of minority groups to prevent them from participating in the elections.

Sure the U.S. harassment of Iran strengthens the conservative grip on power - But even without the U.S. harassment and threats, Iranians are not desperate for drastic change. We want gradual change from within the establishment.

The majority of Iranians have patience, and understand that a country which during the last 26 years has experienced a davastating 8 year long war in which Iraq was supported by a whole bunch of countries - including the U.S. which was Saddam's biggest supporter and arms supplier, although Iraq was the agressor, while Iran did not recieve any kind of support by anyone, and a country which has and is experiencing an embargo for all these years, will naturally have problems. What the Iranians also acknowledge are all the tremendous achievements of Iran during these extremely difficult years - in spite of war, isolation, and an embargo. Iran's infrastructure is on the verge of beating the infrastructure of even some of the most developed nations. Iran is marching forwards to become an industrialized and highly advanced nation. And in the process many of its current shortcomings and problems will be solved. Even the political restrictions and shortcomings have improved tremendously, as have also the social freedoms, and will continue to improve. Political liberalization which has also immensly improved year by year may be severly slowed down due to the external threats and harrassment by Israel and the U.S., but will nevertheless continue forward with time.

Iran in 10 years will be a success story and a role model. And all the ridiculous efforts and outright LIES of the U.S. and Israel to portray the Islamic Republic of Iran as the "Most active supporter of terrorism" will be in vain.

posted on May, 5 2005 @ 07:10 AM

Originally posted by Legalizer
So If I write a letter that says "we the 300,000,000 people of America want the current adminstration out", it is somehow a decleration that actually represents all those people?

How do we know that 69,999,999 Iranians aren't like "dude, we gonna kill you, dead!" to the one guy who wrote that thing?

Well I'm sure the young women at least are like "just get me the F out of here!"

But still. One letter doesn't mean the whole nation is ready to overthrow their government.

You are right about that a letter like this doesn't carry much weight. But you are wrong to think that Iranian women want to get the F out of there.

You would be very surprised to find that Iranian women are even more progressive than in many western societies. This is no Afghanistan. Iranian women are active as professionals, lawyers, judges, film makers, military, police, politicians, pilots, cab-drivers, bus-drivers, truck-drivers and even firemen. Iran is the only country in the world that has female-run fire stations! 63% of all higher education students are women. The majority of medical students are women. There are 14 women in the parliament.

But it's far from perfect - that I admit - But so is the U.S. in regards to equality issues between men and women. The laws need to be changed back to the very progressive laws implemented in 1974 by the late Shah, which gives women total equality in all legal regards. And women should ofcourse be allowed to run for the presidential office, which they are not currently. And although I believe that the segregation between men and women in some public areas such as beeches and football stadiums, etc, should be abolished, there are many women in Iran who actually favor such segregation because they can avoid sexual harrassment by some men.

But to think that the women are in such a horrible state that they as you put it "want to get the F out of there" is so far from the reality as it could ever be!

posted on May, 5 2005 @ 07:13 AM
So your not only anti-american siroos your also anti-semetic?

posted on May, 5 2005 @ 07:36 AM

Originally posted by marg6043
If the Iranian people raised up to change the way their government does business they should be applaud, changes that comes from withing a country is good and is the right way to go.

If some has to die fighting for their freedom it should be between themselves and not with the aid of outsiders.

But with the record the US has on results when it gets involve in other countries business I would be very worry of what may become of Iran.

Just look what democracy is doing to Iraq right now everyday is a bloody day for the people in Iraq.

Yes, I agree with you. And as much as I would like to see democracy working in Iraq, I'm afraid that it just won't. How can one expect a society which has never had democracy, and where there is not even a trace of democratical institutions, to suddenly become a functioning democracy? It just won't happen I'm afraid. A society must reach the stage where it can function with a democracy on its own. Democracy CANNOT be implanted or imposed. Iraq is far from having reached the stage where it can embrace democracy. As a result we see chaos. And I believe that this is just what the U.S. wants. The U.S. does not want stability in the countries and regions it wants to control, and the U.S. certainly does not want a Shia dominated government in Iraq. So what is happening in Iraq right now is just fine with the U.S. Do you really think that the Insurgents can be that many and that they can be that well armed so that the U.S. would have such a hard time confronting them? I don't. The U.S. with 140,000 troops there has not made any MAJOR efforts against the insurgents. Except for Falluja!

If one pays attention, one will notice that prior to the Falluja assault there were constant attacks against U.S. soldiers all over Iraq. After the U.S. attacked Falluja, and totally devastated it and killed and maimed thousands of innocent people there, the attacks against U.S. soldiers have ceased. Appearantly the insurgents they targeted in Falluja where a different kind of insurgents than those that today are targeting mostly Shia Iraqis and Iranqi soldiers and law enforcement officers. The U.S. is not lifting much of a finger against the insurgents who today are targeting mostly Iraqi Shia Muslims, Iraqi soldiers and police. It benefits the U.S. on three fronts to not intervene: 1) It weakens the Shia dominated government of Iraq 2) It gives the U.S. an excuse to stay in the country on the pretext that the Iraqi police and military are not able to cope on their own. 3) The U.S. can blame the insurgent attacks on Iran and Syria, and thus use it as an excuse in its campaign against Iran and Syria.

posted on May, 5 2005 @ 07:47 AM

Originally posted by Trustnone
So your not only anti-american siroos your also anti-semetic?

???? What have I said that makes me "anti-semitic" -- Did I say anything about Jews at all? If a person who critsizes or opposes Israel is an "Anti-semite" in YOUR book, then there's something very wrong with YOUR BOOK!

And the same goes for being "Anti-American". I oppose the policies of the government of the U.S.A. and I oppose the current government of the U.S.A. -- I fully respect the sovereignty of the U.S.A. as an independent country. I fully respect the constitution of the U.S.A. and assert that the current government of the U.S. and many of its policies are violating this constitution. I fully respect the American nation. So if I would be "anti-American" in your book, it's not because I am anti-American, but rather because there is something very wrong with your book!

posted on May, 5 2005 @ 08:00 AM
Say It With Pride

Originally posted by Siroos
I oppose the policies of the government of the U.S.A. and I oppose the current government of the U.S.A. -- I fully respect the sovereignty of the U.S.A. as an independent country. I fully respect the constitution of the U.S.A. and assert that the current government of the U.S. and many of its policies are violating this constitution. I fully respect the American nation.

By this definition, you're more American than most Americans.

Now, if you could just be a little more arrogant and war-like -- and less adept with the English language -- you too could enjoy all the perks of being branded an American on ATS.

posted on May, 5 2005 @ 01:54 PM

Originally posted by Legalizer

But still. One letter doesn't mean the whole nation is ready to overthrow their government.

I am in no way suggesting that we make decisions based upon one letter. That would be silly. If there is proof that the majority of Iranians feel this way and actually start a coup to regain their own democracy, we should be open to giving them aid of some sort, even if it is only economic aid by ending all of the sanctions.

But once again, like I have stated many times before, no matter what we do, even if it is nothing at all, we will be wrong and the new Iranian govt will be considered a puppet regime.

posted on May, 5 2005 @ 02:23 PM

Originally posted by drogo

as for interfereing with a neibour. well if i thought it was something serious i would of course try to act apropriately. but how many problems have been in fact CAUSED by interferance? calls about child abuse for instance. sure there are many cases of REAL child abuse, but at the same time there are many in which there was no actual abuses going on.

Drogo, this EXACTLY what I am talking about. Your scenario is non-involvement. He didn't know his neighbors. Non-involvement is a problem. If we were involved, we would know the neighbor by name and we would also know how they are with their children. If it was a child screaming, we would go next door (instead of calling the police first) and ask if everything was ok. You would very quickly know the situation and know whether or not help was needed. We do not know our neighbors any more.

We keep a hands off attitude with EVERYONE. Has this made our lives better? Or is this one of the many reasons why our country is falling apart at the seams? I think it is in our best interests to know what is going on around the neighborhood. Would you know if your neighbor is a crack head? Do you know if it safe for your children to play in your neighborhood? If you heard breaking glass at your neighbors house, would you even inquire as to what it was?

I don't see how not being involved with your surroundings is a benefit. The same should be true with other countries. How involved are YOU?

posted on May, 5 2005 @ 06:41 PM
Siroos, I would rather Iran, as a whole, cease its nonsense "Death to America" chanting.
It does no good to the abysmal state of the relationship between the United States and Iran. I would like to see a renewal of that relationship between the US and Iran in the future. I've always considered Iran to be the most progressive country of all the Middle Eastern countries. Iran's history is rich, deep and long, that's without a doubt.

Secondly, you would have to understand the real reasons of the United States' involvements with Iran since early 1950s. I don't know what type of information your government have taught you of that nature. Few circumstantial factors led up to the United States' controversial role on Iran have been largely influenced and shaped by the British's role in Iran and its oil fields:

1 - the planned nationalization of oil in Iran. Before 1950s, the British dominated the Iranian oil industry backed by powerful British interests and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company.

2 - the spread of communism in the Middle East due to the expanding Soviet sphere of influence. You needed to take into account that less than three-fourth of the Soviet Union's republics were of Muslim dominions. Stalin's treatments against Muslims, although little known, were as ruthless and barbaric as he did for non-Muslim Soviet citizens. Millions of Muslims in the former Soviet republics were slaughtered or jailed during Stalin's reign. Stalin saw Iran as a future Soviet republic or satellite if he was given that opportunity had not the powerful British interests protected Iran entirely.

3 - The coup to oust Mossadeq in 1953 was planned by the same powerful British interests who decided to pass the baton to the Americans under President Eisenhower who was under the impression that Iran was in danger of becoming a Soviet satellite, although not entirely true.

4 - In 1954, the year Iran completely nationalized its oil industry. In that same year, coincidentally, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (also known as the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company) became BP (British Petroleum, now called Beyond Petroleum). Just for the oddly coincidental facts, that's all.

Iran's desire to have nuclear energy is something I can understand: Iran have huge oil fields but it doesn't wanted to waste away its source of revenue by using its own oil to energize Iran's growing energy needs in its cities and towns and saw nuclear energy to an alternative to oil-based and coal-based energy needs. This nuclear energy policy was planned long before your Islamic revolution, suspended during the 1980s (because of the Iran-Iraq war) and reactivated in the 1990s.

HOWEVER... there is a serious risk that your government is using its nuclear energy policy to build nuclear weapons secretly. Your country can have nuclear energy but your country's current leadership cannot have nuclear weapons. It is simply too dangerous and it would put your entire country and the Middle East at a greater risk of being annihilated with nuclear weapons. Iran's rich history and culture would be wiped out in a blink of an eye (the same could happen to the United States, Russia, UK, Israel, China, India, Pakistan, Europe, Japan, and the rest of the world).

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in