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.

 

Iran Could Elect First Female President

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Night Watchman

Originally posted by JanusFIN

WHAT A CRAP - WAKE UP!


(visit the link for the full news article)

You impress only your fellow anti-Israeli dimwits with this kind of thing. The rest of us are laughing at your futility.


Quite right;

Whatever the legitimacy of the allegations made by skeptics/media/whoever against Israel or against Iran and the Arab world, The notion most people seem to have that Israel is some Zionist superstate hell-bent on the enshrinement of Judaism across the Middle-East is laughable. 'Puppet of America' or not, the fact remains that Israel is a secular and democratic state, whilst Iran is a de facto (in some ways de jure?) theocracy...

Great example: Whilst both religions, when taken as dogma, strictly forbid homosexuality; Israel has a one of the most thriving gay communities on earth. Look to Iran, what have you got? Teenage boys being hanged (not to mention the spurious evidence surrounding their 'conviction')

I don't give a damn how illegal it is, I won't miss this country when it is wiped off the face of the earth.

And those videos of 'beautiful Iran'? Not really very impressive tbh. I've been to 3rd world countries with architecture and florae FAR more worthy of preservation...

[edit on 10-5-2009 by FMLuder]




posted on May, 10 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Walkswithfish
 


Thanks from nice videos --- We are not talking third world country when we are dealing with Iran... If this has grown issusion about Iranian state.

Thats united country with high self respect - and very long history - I see it like Russia of the Middle East - old empire which is not asking forgiveness from its present.

I highly recomend USrael to hold down their warhorses with this opponent.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Night Watchman

Originally posted by Seany


Actually you are wrong...

AQ was funded and trained to fight Russia in the Afgan war


No actually you are wrong which at this point is hardly surprising.

The US govt did support Afghan insurgents during the Soviet Union's invasion.

AQ did not exist at that time.

Facts can be your friend if you'd let them.





Yes they can,
Everything about AQ , except the name (which was 1988) came about from the Afgan war , the "freedom fighters" who became AQ , were trained and funded by ....the US



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Sonya610
 


You're quite right about Benazhir Bhutto, and there are other examples as well. Bangladesh has also had female Prime Ministers for many years, alternating between two ladies who don't like each other, Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hassina. The Prime Minister is the head of government in that country. Turkey has also had a woman serve as Prime Minister, Tansu Ciller. If we want an example of a Muslim nation with an actual, titular President, we have Indonesia, the country with more Muslims than any other. Megawati Sukarnoputri was elected there in 2001 and served for three years.

For anyone to state, at this point, as the article in the OP does, that any future election will result in "becoming the first Muslim country to have a female president" is simply incorrect.

/edit for clarity

[edit on 5/10/09 by articulus]



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by JanusFIN

"Surgical strikes, limited strikes, pre-emptive strikes..." Those are just very scary warmongering propaganda.




In your fantasy world perhaps but in reality, limited strikes occur. There are times that military action is, as a last resort, necessary.

And as for Iran's right to possess Nuclear weapons, the United Nations and it's member states seem to have a difference of opinion with you on the matter.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by FMLuder
 


Discusting attitude, man!

"Do your homework" (AJ) - And I dont mean Al Jazeera.

Start like with everything - In every board of ATS - Then, lets talk.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seany


Yes they can,
Everything about AQ , except the name (which was 1988) came about from the Afgan war , the "freedom fighters" who became AQ , were trained and funded by ....the US


Oh ok. So the United States funded AQ but not really AQ because they didn't actually exist. But yes, some of those who were part of the freedom fighters became part of AQ.

Regardless, the poster suggested that AQ is CURRENTLY funded by the US and that Hamas or Hezbollah is funded by Israel. Neither of those claims are accurate.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Night Watchman
 


There is no fact, what back up those claims that Iran is willing to upgrade their conventional weapons to nukes. None.

One French study claimed that, it came out in time of Gaza Op, but since then it has dissapeared totally from public eye... Didnt handle the daylight, I quess.

Its another question - should they have all the rights to have those weapons - Pakistan have nukes, Israel have nukes - why not Iran? My opinion is yes, they do have the right, but in their wisdon, they havent already done those, and lets hope they wont need those nukes in future either.

I just dont buy this "Iran has WMD" crap at all - something that we all should learn from Buscheneys acts - 911-WMD lies spread without any respect to the truth.

I was totally against Afghanistan war - Iraq war - and I will stand against Iran war too --- Limited strikes? Yeah, right! --- Look what mess those limited strikes have recently done in Pakistan = All out war situation!



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by JanusFIN
Its another question - should they have all the rights to have those weapons - Pakistan have nukes, Israel have nukes - why not Iran? My opinion is yes, they do have the right, but in their wisdon, they havent already done those, and lets hope they wont need those nukes in future either.




You have the right to your opinion but, today, in the world in which we live, The UN has the legal right to pass and enforce resolutions. Most of the world does not want Iran to have nuclear weapons.

You disagree but the facts are as stated.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Iran has repeatedly broken its NPT signatory obligations, and as such the UN is telling them 'no nuke tech'

I don't like the UN, but in this case I sympathise with their objective.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   
There is quite a bit of information that Al-Quaida was and is funded by the CIA first for the afghan war vs the soviets and then used as a scapegoat for 9/11.

I think the whole conversation about this subject is derailing the OP so let's not continue further along this topic... at least in this thread



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seany

Originally posted by Night Watchman

Originally posted by vegno
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Hamas(or was it Hezbollah?) to Israel what Al-Quaida is to the US? You know... evil terrorists funded under the table by the victim?


No. AQ is not funded by the US.

Nice try, though.

Nor is Israel funding either of the organizations you suggest.

Such nonsense.

[edit on 10-5-2009 by Night Watchman]


Actually you are wrong...

AQ was funded and trained to fight Russia in the Afgan war



The CIA & the Reagan administration funded the Mujahedīn in Afghanistan with money and Stinger missiles etc.

That part of the Mujahedīn then appointed a leader (OBL) for a newly made section to recruit international Mujahedīn from foreign countries, and to keep track of these new recruits and the technological know-how & equipment from CIA - they made a database called:

'Al-Qaida' = The Base ('Al Qaida' is the translation of 'The Base' in Arabic)

(So 'Al-Qaida' the organisation and their database, apparently existed before the war was over - technically also supported & funded by the same countries who supported the Mujahedīn financially during those years)


The mujahideen were significantly financed and armed (and are alleged to have been trained) by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the Carter and Reagan administrations and the governments of Saudi Arabia, the People's Republic of China, several Western European countries, Iran, and Zia-ul-Haq's military regime in Pakistan. The Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was the interagent used in the majority of these activities to disguise the sources of support for the resistance. Under Reagan, U.S. support for the mujahideen evolved into an official U.S. foreign policy, known as the Reagan Doctrine, which included U.S. support for anti-Soviet resistance movements in Afghanistan, Angola, Nicaragua, and elsewhere


en.wikipedia.org...

interesting info about the Stingers:
www.militaryphotos.net...

www.rferl.org...


In late 1986, the CIA supplied the mujahedin with Stinger ground-to-air missiles, and the war changed dramatically. The days of Soviet helicopter supremacy were over.


www.newstatesman.com...


From a Larry King interview:

"Bandar bin Sultan: This is ironic. In the mid-'80s, if you remember, we and the United - Saudi Arabia and the United States were supporting the Mujahideen to liberate Afghanistan from the Soviets. He [Osama bin Laden] came to thank me for my efforts to bring the Americans, our friends, to help us against the atheists, he said the communists. Isn't it ironic?

Larry King: How ironic. In other words, he came to thank you for helping bring America to help him.

Bandar bin Sultan: Right".


The rest is like, fishy history!



And I really like the idea of a female President of Iran! - that would be great!


In fact! give all the power in the world to women with children, and we'll see less wars & destruction!



[edit on 10-5-2009 by Chevalerous]



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Interesting how the history of a terrorist organization comes up in a discussion on the possibility of an election of a woman leader of Iran.

Lies, my friends... Lies, lies and more lies.

From lies comes mistrust, speculation and ultimately motive for wars.

In fact, governments and their lies are the greatest threat to the people of Iran, Israel and the entire world.

Support the peoples initiative to abolish all governments and militaries of the world.




posted on May, 10 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Night Watchman

Originally posted by Seany


Yes they can,
Everything about AQ , except the name (which was 1988) came about from the Afgan war , the "freedom fighters" who became AQ , were trained and funded by ....the US


Oh ok. So the United States funded AQ but not really AQ because they didn't actually exist. But yes, some of those who were part of the freedom fighters became part of AQ.

Regardless, the poster suggested that AQ is CURRENTLY funded by the US and that Hamas or Hezbollah is funded by Israel. Neither of those claims are accurate.



If we want to get picky, The russians asked the US to assist them them in a slow retrieval from Afgan , setting up a stable government in Afgan that all could live with, The Neocon Americans declined , sensing a Victory against Russia. insisting they would assist the freedom Fighters till the last day. When the Russians left , so did aid from the US, and a void was left for the Extremeist to set up a Gov in Afgan. So here we are today, the US once again cleaning up a mess that didn't have to exist.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
What do you think Janus...since Iran is so "progressive" could the next Supreme [cleric] leader and successor of Ali Khamenei also be a woman?

mmmm




[edit on 10-5-2009 by Foppezao]



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   
What's the likelihood of a new president in Iran actually being able to defuse the nuclear situation ? Or will it be more of the same old same old ?

Does Iran have the right to generate power by means of nuclear energy ? Or will will the " West " simply not allow it to happen ?

If enough time is given will not every country of the world eventually come to generate power by means of nuclear energy ?



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Foppezao
What do you think Janus...since Iran is so "progressive" could the next Supreme [cleric] leader and successor of Ali Khamenei also be a woman?

mmmm




[edit on 10-5-2009 by Foppezao]


I would bet the farm that we will never see that happen


I know that the true head of state in Iran is in fact the Supreme Cleric but how much of a roll do they play in Iranian politics ? Do they set guide lines or do they make policy ?

I am pretty sure that even if there prez didn't want to pursue nuclear energy the Supreme Cleric would most certainly override such a decision .



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by JanusFIN

Iran Could Elect First Female President
News what "they" will not want you to read.
This is not part of Reuters/Ap propaganda... It goes more like this:
"Evil is Iran, where unhuman dictator is ruling with iron fist - and those suicidal shias, only one thing - and common dream in their mind - to nuke Israel..."
WHAT A CRAP - WAKE UP!


Only you can turn a story about Iran possibly electing their first female to high office into a slam against Israel and the west


And people star you for it how sad.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by JanusFIN
I see it like Russia of the Middle East - old empire which is not asking forgiveness from its present.


Can I quote you on that when dealing with the US when everybody starts their finger pointing about all the perceived evil we have done?


[edit on 10-5-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by vegno
There is quite a bit of information that Al-Quaida was and is funded by the CIA first for the afghan war vs the soviets and then used as a scapegoat for 9/11.

I think the whole conversation about this subject is derailing the OP so let's not continue further along this topic... at least in this thread


Fine but I must correct one thing you wrote. There is no credible information suggesting that AQ was used as a scapegoat. There are inconsistencies in the official story but that does not equal credible evidence that AQ was used as a scapegoat.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join