Why all the hating towards Iran? Be specific., page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 11 times

Topic started on 24-6-2009 @ 11:41 PM by Zerbst

I am having a difficult time understanding the unanimous fear and hatred towards Iran? What specifically warrants this amount of support of the US governments position? What specifically has Iran done to deserve this?

As far as I can see, Iran has to be considered one of the most peaceful nations in the world. They have never attacked another country, yet their 5000 year history is far longer than most. They are within their rights to pursue nuclear energy technology, while seemingly attempting to adhere to it's statutory guidelines. They were significantly thwarted in progressing as a country, by the US, for nearly 30 years due to the overthrow of their elected government. Many atrocities thrust upon them have either been; committed by Americas installed monarchy; lies and propaganda; ancient history, or known laws of Iran.

So what's the big fuss about? Surely there are worse threats than Iran? Obviously there are much bigger and more important problems in which to invest our resources? Places in dire need where hunger and disease are at critical levels. Why Iran, what is the evidence supporting it?

There are many Iran threads piling up lately on ATS. They all have one thing in common, hatred of the Iranian government. Why is everyone afraid of Iran? What are the specifics? Please tell me, I want to make sense of it!

Peace.

reply posted on 24-6-2009 @ 11:54 PM by Republican08

I'll say it, and get blasted, but the main thing of this writing, is two get two lines.

MainStreamMedia.

reply posted on 24-6-2009 @ 11:56 PM by tothetenthpower

reply to post by Republican08

Well you've said it all there my friend. That's exactly the answer.

Iranian Media VS American Media

That's what this comes down to. People are itchin' for war, and thy will get it with they're heavy propaganda.

~Keeper

reply posted on 25-6-2009 @ 12:02 AM by Republican08

reply to post by tothetenthpower

I kinda agree.

Although noone wants a war, (except for bush, he's so silly).

People are 'expecting' a war. And making it happen, they look for the signs of a war, indulge in it, exagerate it, and there you have a war.

MSM is only a spark to the flame, we saw bush use this with Iraq, ignite fear via MSM, let the fear overwhelm the people as they boost it up to a higher level themselves, ask if they need this war, get a good response, and we go to war!

Success.

People are just swayed to whatever the MSM is putting out there.

This war won't be like the cold war, where at least some good came out of it, space wise.

This one will just be bloodshed over beliefs, and arrogance. Where's the good in that.

If you were upset about the dolphin slaying video, you should be ten times more upset over the thought of that being men women and children instead. Yet noone makes the connection.

reply posted on 25-6-2009 @ 12:25 AM by Sundancer

I don't believe a word of the garbage main stream media throws out there for us. The more they scream for blood in Iran the less I trust their reasons for war. Glad to see there are a few others who aren't brainwashed yet as well.

Edit to add
Star and flagged, spread the love!

[edit on 25-6-2009 by Sundancer]

reply posted on 25-6-2009 @ 12:27 AM by kyred

Personally, I don't hate Iran. It seems to me there is a continuing push towards war between the U.S. and Iran. It's sad, really. I guess it's got something to do with Iran supporting Hezbollah in their crusade against Israel. And, too, the folks running things on the Arabian pennisula don't like Iran, and they influence our government, and Israel influences our government.
That's all simple, I guess. Maybe too simplified and maybe even ignorant on my part.

Hell, maybe it's just a case of TPTB are embarassed by the overthrow of the Shah of Iran 30 years ago.

reply posted on 25-6-2009 @ 12:29 AM by maus80

I don't think people are "itching for war", that makes it sound like Americans would be glad to have someone to be pissed off at.

It isn't like that at all, it's just a matter of intolerance. Fear can be born out of ignorance or awareness, but either way it breeds hatred and intolerance.

If you guys are really trying to say that this doesn't have everything to do with history and hard facts, and is more about a sheep/wolves/shepherds paradigm born out of selfish ignorance and flock mentality, then let's examine it from that viewpoint for a second;

A lot of Americans are intolerant of foreign nations that vary too greatly from the society they are used to, and feel safest with. If the majority of the news and impressions they receive about a nation intrigue, excite, or otherwise benefit them in a positive way, or are often romanticized in pop-culture - our media driven society will have positive feelings about that nation.

If the majority of the news and impressions they receive frighten, anger, disgust, or otherwise upset them in a negative way, or are often vilified in pop-culture - our media driven society will have negative feelings about that nation.

So, who here do we blame? Who is offering a genuine red pill, who can you trust without it?

[edit on 25-6-2009 by maus80]

reply posted on 25-6-2009 @ 12:34 AM by helen670

reply to post by Zerbst

Hi/

You ask why?

So what's the big fuss about? Surely there are worse threats than Iran? Obviously there are much bigger and more important problems in which to invest our resources? Places in dire need where hunger and disease are at critical levels. Why Iran, what is the evidence supporting it?

Of course there are worse threats!
All those you listed!
Why SHOULD there be HUNGER in todays society?
I agree.
But can people really see this,I mean, really,can they?

ICXN
helen

reply posted on 25-6-2009 @ 12:37 AM by Zerbst

Originally posted by helen670
reply to post by Zerbst

Hi/

You ask why?

So what's the big fuss about? Surely there are worse threats than Iran? Obviously there are much bigger and more important problems in which to invest our resources? Places in dire need where hunger and disease are at critical levels. Why Iran, what is the evidence supporting it?

Of course there are worse threats!
All those you listed!
Why SHOULD there be HUNGER in todays society?
I agree.
But can people really see this,I mean, really,can they?

ICXN
helen

I think the honest observation is that there's no profit in feeding the world. There's a whole lot of profit in destroying it! Find a payoff and you'll find a cause. Sad is that is?

reply posted on 25-6-2009 @ 12:41 AM by helen670

reply to post by Zerbst

I think the honest observation is that there's no profit in feeding the world.

So very true!

There's a whole lot of profit in destroying it!
Find a payoff and you'll find a cause. Sad is that is?

Again,so true!

The Blind leading the blind!!!

ICXN
helen

reply posted on 25-6-2009 @ 03:06 AM by SLAYER69

reply posted on 25-6-2009 @ 03:15 AM by Zenagain

I think that Iran is filled with a lot of people that are not terribly different than Americans and a very small minority of what we in America would call "rednecks". With no outside intervention at all, it's only a small amount of time before the "non-rednecks" take control. I know quite a few Persians and they are really cool people.

reply posted on 25-6-2009 @ 03:25 AM by donhuangenaro

why?

this is why:

telegraph.co.uk

Israel launches covert war against Iran

Israel has launched a covert war against Iran as an alternative to direct military strikes against Tehran's nuclear programme, US intelligence sources have revealed.

By Philip Sherwell in New York
Published: 7:33PM GMT 16 Feb 2009

It is using hitmen, sabotage, front companies and double agents to disrupt the regime's illicit weapons project, the experts say.

The most dramatic element of the "decapitation" programme is the planned assassination of top figures involved in Iran's atomic operations.

Despite fears in Israel and the US that Iran is approaching the point of no return in its ability to build atom bomb, Israeli officials are aware of the change in mood in Washington since President Barack Obama took office.

They privately acknowledge the new US administration is unlikely to sanction an air attack on Iran's nuclear installations and Mr Obama's offer to extend a hand of peace to Tehran puts any direct military action beyond reach for now.

The aim is to slow down or interrupt Iran's research programme, without the gamble of a direct confrontation that could lead to a wider war.

A former CIA officer on Iran told The Daily Telegraph: "Disruption is designed to slow progress on the programme, done in such a way that they don't realise what's happening. You are never going to stop it.

it is called psychological warfare and naive sheeple are falling for it

reply posted on 25-6-2009 @ 03:46 AM by l_e_cox

reply to post by SLAYER69

You, my friend, have produced an informative and captivating post on this subject!

But I wonder if it really answers the original question.

Here is the basic theory of this situation, as it was taught to me:

Any significantly violent clash between individuals or groups is a clear sign that a hidden "third party" is actively provoking the dispute.

This is the classic technique for destroying stronger powers to leave room for a weaker power to take control. It is insane because the weaker power is far less able to do a good job at running things than the stronger powers were, and so the majority will suffer while the fighters flail away at each other.

If the lies and propaganda of the weak troublemakers were removed from the situation, the powers in question would normally either stop fighting or find a way to settle their differences without using major violence.

The point is: these conflicts are manufactured. And they always have been. All the way back down the track to Adam and Eve and before them, too.

Sane men do not enjoy the waste and destruction of war. They would much prefer a friendly round of arm wrestling any day. The correct targets for all investigations truly intended to reduce or end violent conflicts are the insane or criminal troublemakers who cause them from behind the scenes.

reply posted on 25-6-2009 @ 04:04 AM by Thebudweiserstuntman

reply to post by Zerbst

Its because they're different to us. We fear difference.

reply posted on 25-6-2009 @ 04:17 AM by Ex_MislTech

reply to post by SLAYER69

Very good post, I think it is better than any of mine in the past.

The Great Game

Well laid out and you are so dead on about the Great Game, it
was true then and it is true now.

The one thing I will add that is too obvious is, this will not end well.

reply posted on 25-6-2009 @ 04:42 AM by Dark Ghost

If I were to venture a guess, I would say people in the West who hate Iran (without valid empirical reasons) do so because their culture and laws are quite different. Yes, being different is the cause for hate in many parts of the world.

However, as previous posters have correctly stated Iran does NOT have a history of military aggression towards neighbouring countries. Thus, it is unreasonable for people to automatically believe all the negative things said about this country, without having been to the land, studied its history or having dialogue with Iranians.

reply posted on 25-6-2009 @ 05:21 AM by tristar

I can understand what you mean by hate thread's, that is understandable as most apart form internet and television aren't that informed.

Since this site holds some valued traffic it is also logical to think that post's are made to perhaps persuade and move notions in a particular direction. This is a common method and perhaps you should have been aware of content and the type of content being published.

You might have noticed that political orientated topics remain in "Alternative Breaking News" when clearly they are pollitically orientated.

Some may argue that it is an ongoing topic therefore its breaking news, but one should sit down and re-think what time frame is relevant to "Breaking News", its accepted that "Breaking News" is only relevant to a 24hr period, or if it is an ongoing process as in the case of the Iran or North Korean situation then it should be re posted with the new headline.

What i am pointing out is that there are flaws in the system which can be addressed but that would require immense time on behalf of the site owners, who i have no direct or indirect association with.

However, most of the Iran topics or N.Korean topics are not up to date as one would like to think or present.

YouTube Link

“This agreement for almost $100 billion dollars has become the most important of all in the history of our relations,” President Medvedev

“Of course we are interested in security and stable development in Central Asia,”.... “Our joint statement reflects the similarity of our approaches.” President Medvedev

Russia and China urge “by peaceful means, through dialog and consultations”,.... “maintaining and strengthening peace and security in the North-Eastern Asia sub-region, on the basis of forming a relevant multilateral mechanism”

“During these 60 years our relations have made great progress. China’s government and people will never forget that the Soviet Union was the first to recognize the People’s Republic of China and establish diplomatic ties with us,” Hu Jintao