[jaxie]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

It was an opinion piece and one with a lot of inaccuracies.

The West entered Baghdad as liberators against an evil dictator (notice its always America who gets to choose who’s evil). The same evil dictator the U.S put into power. The same evil dictator the U.S supported throughout its long war against Iran.

They didn’t enter Iraq because there was a load of Muslim warring tribes. The entered Iraq to get rid of Saddam who had just declared to the world that he was going to start a gold currency which would inevitably affect the U.S economy. They went into Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction, even though they knew there weren’t any.

If the West were liberators then why did they spend months prior to entering Iraq stirring up agitation amongst the Iraqi people? why after the West destroyed Baghdad did it stop Iraqi companies getting the tender to rebuild. (ensuring their economy couldn’t recover)? Why did the U.S stand back after destroying the forces of order and allow chaos to prevail? Why did they hang the US flag and not the Iraqi flag over Saddam’s statue?

Religion is irrelevant here. The vast majority of Iraq is the same religion as the Gulf states. The invasion of Iraq was a war of aggression to secure resources and stop a gold currency. It was an illegal war and a war that needlessly killed hundreds of Western troops and thousands of Iraqi civilians.

In your anger at the big bad west you are forgetting that Iraq attacked Kuwait which is what started the whole thing.

There is nothing wrong with a well written opinion piece most journalism has elements of opinion in the reportage. All you are expressing is an opinion after all.

However we aren't even talking about Iraq in this thread. It's about public dissent in Iran.

The religion has everything to do with the repression, power and control of the region which is a great deal of the problem for the people who live there. Religious governance, religion dictating to state, does not work and often leads to very repressive rules pushed onto the people. If you look at Ireland they began huge change in separating religion from government in recent years.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by jaxie

In your anger at the big bad west you are forgetting that Iraq attacked Kuwait which is what started the whole thing.

My anger has never been with the West, but with Western governments who meddle in countries like Iraq, Libya, Syria and Iran. I, like a million other westerners marched against the invasion of Iraq. I, like other westerners don't agree with the massive sanctions put on Iran by the West. I, like other westerners think these countries need a little less help from the West... don't you?

The invasion of Kuwait was in 1990. The Invasion of Iraq started in 2003... thirteen years later. The U.S wanted to remove the regime and used 'weapons of mass destruction' as a reason to invade.

There is nothing wrong with a well written opinion piece most journalism has elements of opinion in the reportage. All you are expressing is an opinion after all.

Unless of course that opinion piece is shifting the blame. It then becomes propaganda.
Do you think it was okay in that opinion piece to have a covering picture of an American hanging a U.S flag over a country they were supposed to be liberating?

However we aren't even talking about Iraq in this thread. It's about public dissent in Iran.

The religion has everything to do with the repression, power and control of the region which is a great deal of the problem for the people who live there. Religious governance, religion dictating to state, does not work and often leads to very repressive rules pushed onto the people. If you look at Ireland they began huge change in separating religion from government in recent years.

Iran may have a religious dictator but its their dictator so we, the West, need to keep our noses out of their affairs... you know, like we keep our noses out of Saudi Arabia.

I've already given links that shows western properganda has been busy throughout Iran with no other intent than to incite riots. The Brits did the same when they wanted to topple the Mossadegh government and install the Shah. You do know that before British intervention in 1953, Iran/Persia was a democratic country?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...3-iranian-coup.

The West knows it can't just invade Iran. China and Russia would stand in to protect that country so we would likely have a third world war. The next best thing is to stir up a coup d'etat.

If you want to believe western governments are cuddly do gooders who only want to protect the people of Iran, then carry on. Nothing I say will make you go and investigate the bigger picture.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

My anger has never been with the West, but with Western governments who meddle in countries like Iraq, Libya, Syria and Iran. I, like a million other westerners marched against the invasion of Iraq. I, like other westerners don't agree with the massive sanctions put on Iran by the West. I, like other westerners think these countries need a little less help from the West... don't you?

The invasion of Kuwait was in 1990. The Invasion of Iraq started in 2003... thirteen years later. The U.S wanted to remove the regime and used 'weapons of mass destruction' as a reason to invade.



Unless of course that opinion piece is shifting the blame. It then becomes propaganda.
Do you think it was okay in that opinion piece to have a covering picture of an American hanging a U.S flag over a country they were supposed to be liberating?



Iran may have a religious dictator but its their dictator so we, the West, need to keep our noses out of their affairs... you know, like we keep our noses out of Saudi Arabia.

I've already given links that shows western properganda has been busy throughout Iran with no other intent than to incite riots. The Brits did the same when they wanted to topple the Mossadegh government and install the Shah. You do know that before British intervention in 1953, Iran/Persia was a democratic country?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...3-iranian-coup.

The West knows it can't just invade Iran. China and Russia would stand in to protect that country so we would likely have a third world war. The next best thing is to stir up a coup d'etat.

If you want to believe western governments are cuddly do gooders who only want to protect the people of Iran, then carry on. Nothing I say will make you go and investigate the bigger picture.

You obviously didn't even read the article. Concern over the oppression of women and when a nation slaughters it's own people has nothing to do with other people's business and everything to do with human rights..

Iran are protesting about their religious dictator. That's what the thread is discussing. Well it might be if you stopped the anti West ranting.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by jaxie

You obviously didn't even read the article. Concern over the oppression of women and when a nation slaughters it's own people has nothing to do with other people's business and everything to do with human rights..

Iran are protesting about their religious dictator. That's what the thread is discussing. Well it might be if you stopped the anti West ranting.

Yes I did read the article. The West however, is not wanting to invade Iran or encourage an uprising because women are oppressed or because the Iranian government are hot on capital punishment. If that was the case we would of invaded Saudi Arabia (a country far more repressed and barbaric than Iran) long ago... wouldn't we?

I've got a keen interest on Iranian affairs so I'm following closely what's happening their. There are many protests. Some are about rising inflation, some are from the radicals who want all women to be arrested if they don't wear hijab. Some are about regime change. Some are about the government squandering money on military weapons and some are about student rights. We are being given the impression that all these protests are about regime change... they are not.

I explained about my view of the West and you chose to ignore it and have another go with those assassin words of yours. You need to have a word with yourself.
I won't be answering any more of your posts on this thread because if you have to resort to that last sentence you typed, you're really not worth my time.

[Maru]

I remember years back on another forum, we had an Iranian poster who I'm not sure if they were able to post or if they had to circumvent it somehow (hard to remember the details, it was almost 10 years ago), but they found a way to keep us up to date with their actions all the while being secretive about it.

They posted very raw pictures and told us about a lot of the violence there and their posts were so full of fear and anguish, but also of hope. I think it was very traumatic for them, and to a degree to read, to even post as it seemed like it was a dire situation and somewhat hopeless situation and to not know if the person who was posting would be alive the next day.

Then there was violence and their "voice" changed. I want to say this was after the Death of Neda. One of the lasts posts he'd written was him freaking out, saying there's just no way he can stand up to this violence, that he submitted to their whim... it was more than just "Ok you win", it was like a sad prayer and the way they wrote it was sorta like a re-allegiance to the govt admitting they were defeated and they could never resist, but also a desperate plea to stop the violence because they won't resist as they didn't want to be killed.

There are few things sadder than the post that I read that day and it still brings up a range of emotions to recall it (similar to 9/11). To see their posts go from terror to hope to total submission and pleas for the violence to stop, it's unthinkable in our country. And to add to that, the pictures. I am even more grateful for our democracy having been a witness to their writings, but at the same time, I can't possibly comprehend what the terror must be like living under a regime that would put you through that. We are so blessed. It's also so unfair that we've become so used to these world events.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Maru

I remember years back on another forum, we had an Iranian poster who I'm not sure if they were able to post or if they had to circumvent it somehow (hard to remember the details, it was almost 10 years ago), but they found a way to keep us up to date with their actions all the while being secretive about it.

They posted very raw pictures and told us about a lot of the violence there and their posts were so full of fear and anguish, but also of hope. I think it was very traumatic for them, and to a degree to read, to even post as it seemed like it was a dire situation and somewhat hopeless situation and to not know if the person who was posting would be alive the next day.

Then there was violence and their "voice" changed. I want to say this was after the Death of Neda. One of the lasts posts he'd written was him freaking out, saying there's just no way he can stand up to this violence, that he submitted to their whim... it was more than just "Ok you win", it was like a sad prayer and the way they wrote it was sorta like a re-allegiance to the govt admitting they were defeated and they could never resist, but also a desperate plea to stop the violence because they won't resist as they didn't want to be killed.

There are few things sadder than the post that I read that day and it still brings up a range of emotions to recall it (similar to 9/11). To see their posts go from terror to hope to total submission and pleas for the violence to stop, it's unthinkable in our country. And to add to that, the pictures. I am even more grateful for our democracy having been a witness to their writings, but at the same time, I can't possibly comprehend what the terror must be like living under a regime that would put you through that. We are so blessed. It's also so unfair that we've become so used to these world events.

Maru, I was married to an Iranian and I lived in Iran. My eldest son was born in Iran and so he's actually Iranian. I speak farsi and I regularly chat with relatives and friends who still live in Iran as well as family members who now live in France but still have close connections with Iran.

I don't obviously know anything about this Iranian person you speak about. Where about in Iran he lived or why he was so afraid. I only know what I have personally experienced and the news I get from people who are there and the people who are there don't speak to me with fear in their voices. They want to talk about the latest fashion or nail extensions or the ridiculous price of chicken. They want to tell me about their latest skiing trip to Shemshak (a place I used to rock climb). They do talk about times being tougher from the sanctions but its a grumble, not heart felt terror.

I long to go back to Iran one day. I just don't want to go back to a dust bowl like Syria or Iraq.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Maru, I was married to an Iranian and I lived in Iran. My eldest son was born in Iran and so he's actually Iranian. I speak farsi and I regularly chat with relatives and friends who still live in Iran as well as family members who now live in France but still have close connections with Iran.

I don't obviously know anything about this Iranian person you speak about. Where about in Iran he lived or why he was so afraid. I only know what I have personally experienced and the news I get from people who are there and the people who are there don't speak to me with fear in their voices. They want to talk about the latest fashion or nail extensions or the ridiculous price of chicken. They want to tell me about their latest skiing trip to Shemshak (a place I used to rock climb). They do talk about times being tougher from the sanctions but its a grumble, not heart felt terror.

I long to go back to Iran one day. I just don't want to go back to a dust bowl like Syria or Iraq.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ousavi-attacks

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Maru

I remember years back on another forum, we had an Iranian poster who I'm not sure if they were able to post or if they had to circumvent it somehow (hard to remember the details, it was almost 10 years ago), but they found a way to keep us up to date with their actions all the while being secretive about it.

They posted very raw pictures and told us about a lot of the violence there and their posts were so full of fear and anguish, but also of hope. I think it was very traumatic for them, and to a degree to read, to even post as it seemed like it was a dire situation and somewhat hopeless situation and to not know if the person who was posting would be alive the next day.

Then there was violence and their "voice" changed. I want to say this was after the Death of Neda. One of the lasts posts he'd written was him freaking out, saying there's just no way he can stand up to this violence, that he submitted to their whim... it was more than just "Ok you win", it was like a sad prayer and the way they wrote it was sorta like a re-allegiance to the govt admitting they were defeated and they could never resist, but also a desperate plea to stop the violence because they won't resist as they didn't want to be killed.

There are few things sadder than the post that I read that day and it still brings up a range of emotions to recall it (similar to 9/11). To see their posts go from terror to hope to total submission and pleas for the violence to stop, it's unthinkable in our country. And to add to that, the pictures. I am even more grateful for our democracy having been a witness to their writings, but at the same time, I can't possibly comprehend what the terror must be like living under a regime that would put you through that. We are so blessed. It's also so unfair that we've become so used to these world events.

A good thought provoking post, thanks for sharing that poor mans story. He had a voice and you heard him and remember and I think that's pretty important.

I don't think I could ever get used to seeing desperate, miserable people but we are seeing it so much in recent years. I am thankful for the freedoms we enjoy.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by jaxie

A good thought provoking post, thanks for sharing that poor mans story. He had a voice and you heard him and remember and I think that's pretty important.

I don't think I could ever get used to seeing desperate, miserable people but we are seeing it so much in recent years. I am thankful for the freedoms we enjoy.

You're a good person, jaxie.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Maru

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ousavi-attacks

Ah so he must of been caught up in the 2009 riots in Tehran (you said it was around 10 years ago)

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Yes I did read the article. The West however, is not wanting to invade Iran or encourage an uprising because women are oppressed or because the Iranian government are hot on capital punishment. If that was the case we would of invaded Saudi Arabia (a country far more repressed and barbaric than Iran) long ago... wouldn't we?

I've got a keen interest on Iranian affairs so I'm following closely what's happening their. There are many protests. Some are about rising inflation, some are from the radicals who want all women to be arrested if they don't wear hijab. Some are about regime change. Some are about the government squandering money on military weapons and some are about student rights. We are being given the impression that all these protests are about regime change... they are not.

I explained about my view of the West and you chose to ignore it and have another go with those assassin words of yours. You need to have a word with yourself.
I won't be answering any more of your posts on this thread because if you have to resort to that last sentence you typed, you're really not worth my time.

Assassin words? I have no words.

[Northern Monkey]

Never been to Iran but i’d guess it’s a pretty oppressive regime as most Muslim lead countries are.
It also wouldn’t surprise me if the west had some part to play in all these uprisings tbh.
‘Change from within’ etc.

[bots]

Interestingly, the Shah was a lot more considerate when his regime was threatented:

One explanation for the low number of casualties is the shah's reluctance to use force. The shah "frequently" insisted to "foreign emissaries" that he was "unwilling to massacre his subjects in order to save his throne." `"The instructions I gave were always the same: "do the impossible to avoid bloodshed."` While this claim was at odds with "the image of vast masses standing up to machine-gun fire" at the time of the revolution, various military officials have since "corroborated" it according to author Charles Kurzman

then, once the revolutionaries gained power:

Following the overthrow of the Shah's government on 11 February 1979 (22 Bahman 1357), members of the old regime, including senior generals, were executed by revolutionary leadership. For this aim, the Islamic regime formed komitehs (committees) in all provinces.[18] Ayatollah Mohammad Reza Mahdavi Kani was the chief of the Central Provisional Komiteh for the Islamic Revolution.[18] The komitehs were lack of necessary mechanism and legal procedure, leading to restructuring on 8 March 1979.[18]

In the first couple of months, over 200 of the Shah's senior civilian officials were killed as punishment and to eliminate the danger of coup d'état.[19] The first death sentences were approved by the Tehran court on four of the shah's generals on February 1979.[20] They were Mehdi Rahimi, the military commander of Tehran, Reza Naji, the military governor of Isfahan, Nematollah Nassiri, the head of SAVAK, and Manuchehr Khosrodad, an air force general. All four generals were executed by firing squad on the roof of the then Ayatollah Khomeini's headquarters on 15 February.[20]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casual...ian_Revolution


The current regime have no right to complain against what is happening to them

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Interestingly, the Shah was a lot more considerate when his regime was threatented:

One explanation for the low number of casualties is the shah's reluctance to use force. The shah "frequently" insisted to "foreign emissaries" that he was "unwilling to massacre his subjects in order to save his throne." `"The instructions I gave were always the same: "do the impossible to avoid bloodshed."` While this claim was at odds with "the image of vast masses standing up to machine-gun fire" at the time of the revolution, various military officials have since "corroborated" it according to author Charles Kurzman

then, once the revolutionaries gained power:

Following the overthrow of the Shah's government on 11 February 1979 (22 Bahman 1357), members of the old regime, including senior generals, were executed by revolutionary leadership. For this aim, the Islamic regime formed komitehs (committees) in all provinces.[18] Ayatollah Mohammad Reza Mahdavi Kani was the chief of the Central Provisional Komiteh for the Islamic Revolution.[18] The komitehs were lack of necessary mechanism and legal procedure, leading to restructuring on 8 March 1979.[18]

In the first couple of months, over 200 of the Shah's senior civilian officials were killed as punishment and to eliminate the danger of coup d'état.[19] The first death sentences were approved by the Tehran court on four of the shah's generals on February 1979.[20] They were Mehdi Rahimi, the military commander of Tehran, Reza Naji, the military governor of Isfahan, Nematollah Nassiri, the head of SAVAK, and Manuchehr Khosrodad, an air force general. All four generals were executed by firing squad on the roof of the then Ayatollah Khomeini's headquarters on 15 February.[20]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casual...ian_Revolution


The current regime have no right to complain against what is happening to them

His reluctance to fire on his people is very admirable. I can see why there might still be people who support him.

[DemolitionRed]

Historian F. William Engdahl says in his 2004 book, "A Century Of War : Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order," that the Carter administration changed U.S. policy towards Iran in 1978 by bringing in members from the Bilderberg Group to draw up covert plans to remove the Shah and bring Khomeini to the throne. Engdahl wrote: "In November 1978, President Carter named the Bilderberg group's George Ball, another member of the Trilateral Commission, to head a special White House Iran task force under the National Security Council's Brzezinski. Ball recommended that Washington drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the fundamentalistic Islamic opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. Robert Bowie from the CIA was one of the lead 'case officers' in the new CIA-led coup against the man their covert actions had placed into power 25 years earlier.

Their scheme was based on a detailed study of the phenomenon of Islamic fundamentalism, as presented by British Islamic expert, Dr. Bernard Lewis, then on assignment at Princeton University in the United States. Lewis's scheme, which was unveiled at the May 1979 Bilderberg meeting in Austria, endorsed the radical Muslim Brotherhood movement behind Khomeini, in order to promote balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. Lewis argued that the West should encourage autonomous groups such as the Kurds, Armenians, Lebanese Maronites, Ethiopian Copts, Azerbaijani Turks, and so forth. The chaos would spread in what he termed an 'Arc of Crisis,' which would spill over into Muslim regions of the Soviet Union.

The coup against the Shah was run by British and American intelligence, with the bombastic American, Brzezinski, taking public 'credit' for getting rid of the 'corrupt' Shah, while the British characteristically remained safely in the background.

During 1978, negotiations were under way between the Shah's government and British Petroleum for renewal of the 25-year old extraction agreement. By October 1978, the talks had collapsed over a British 'offer' which demanded exclusive rights to Iran's future oil output, while refusing to guarantee purchase of the oil. With their dependence on British-controlled export apparently at an end, Iran appeared on the verge of independence in its oil sales policy for the first time since 1953, with eager prospective buyers in Germany, France, Japan and elsewhere." http://disquietreservations.blogspot...installed.html

[DemolitionRed]

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/20/...an-tehran-oil/
The approximately 1,000 pages of documents reveal for the first time the details of how the CIA attempted to call off the failing coup — only to be salvaged at the last minute by an insubordinate spy on the ground.

Known as Operation Ajax, the CIA plot was ultimately about oil. Western firms had for decades controlled the region’s oil wealth, whether Arabian-American Oil Company in Saudi Arabia, or the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in Iran. When the U.S. firm in Saudi Arabia bowed to pressure in late 1950 and agreed to share oil revenues evenly with Riyadh, the British concession in Iran came under intense pressure to follow suit. But London adamantly refused.

So in early 1951, amid great popular acclaim, Mossadegh nationalized Iran’s oil industry. A fuming United Kingdom began conspiring with U.S. intelligence services to overthrow Mossadegh and restore the monarchy under the shah. (Though some in the U.S. State Department, the newly released cables show, blamed British intransigence for the tensions and sought to work with Mossadegh.)

[DemolitionRed]

Donald Trump has kept up a stream of tweets effectively calling for an uprising in Iran. Ayatollah Khamenei did not name any of the supposed enemy states, but Ali Shamkhani, the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, blamed the US, Britain, and Saudi Arabia for the violence. “The Saudis will receive Iran’s response and they know how serious it will be,” he warned.

“We now have a situation where there are people in the UK, Europe and the US in the West, who are encouraging attacks on police stations, telling them how to make Molotov cocktails. What would the reaction be in the UK and elsewhere in the West if there were people in Iran directing rioters to carry out attacks on police stations in London, Paris and Washington? I wonder if the British Government has thought about the effect this will have on future rapprochement with Iran in the future?”

Mr Marandi stressed that that initial protests last Thursday were about economic grievances and were “entirely legitimate”, but, he said, “many of the marches were subsequently hijacked for extremist political motives. There are legal ways to protest: let’s not forget Iran is a democracy, we had presidential elections here this year with a turnout of more than 73 per cent in which 57 per cent voted for the current President.”

The Iranian authorities and Mr Marandi accuse the Mojahedin-e Khalq, which has bases in Europe including London, for instigating violence. The organisation fled Iran, basing itself in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. A 2004 report by the FBI accused the organisation of money-laundering; three years previously the Charity Commission for England and Wales closed down a charity, Iran Aid, run by the group. Mojahedin-e Khalq denies any wrongdoing.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a8138721.html

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

The story that's not being told is, some of these protests are hard liners who believe the government are becoming too westernized. An example of that is a large protest that's still ongoing after the government announced it would no longer be arresting women who don't cover their hair.

Oh wow. I'd not looked into these protests at all so only caught snatches here and there, but the impression I got from these fragments was that the protestors were trying to win the right to walk out in public with their hair uncovered ...

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Donald Trump has kept up a stream of tweets effectively calling for an uprising in Iran. Ayatollah Khamenei did not name any of the supposed enemy states, but Ali Shamkhani, the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, blamed the US, Britain, and Saudi Arabia for the violence. “The Saudis will receive Iran’s response and they know how serious it will be,” he warned.

“We now have a situation where there are people in the UK, Europe and the US in the West, who are encouraging attacks on police stations, telling them how to make Molotov cocktails. What would the reaction be in the UK and elsewhere in the West if there were people in Iran directing rioters to carry out attacks on police stations in London, Paris and Washington? I wonder if the British Government has thought about the effect this will have on future rapprochement with Iran in the future?”

Mr Marandi stressed that that initial protests last Thursday were about economic grievances and were “entirely legitimate”, but, he said, “many of the marches were subsequently hijacked for extremist political motives. There are legal ways to protest: let’s not forget Iran is a democracy, we had presidential elections here this year with a turnout of more than 73 per cent in which 57 per cent voted for the current President.”

The Iranian authorities and Mr Marandi accuse the Mojahedin-e Khalq, which has bases in Europe including London, for instigating violence. The organisation fled Iran, basing itself in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. A 2004 report by the FBI accused the organisation of money-laundering; three years previously the Charity Commission for England and Wales closed down a charity, Iran Aid, run by the group. Mojahedin-e Khalq denies any wrongdoing.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a8138721.html

Where there is communication there is always the possibility of one individual saying to another individual or hosted on a blog 'this is how you make a bomb'. Thats often how terrorism works and people from a wide variety of countries I'm sure contribute. However, trying to suggest this kind of activity is state sponsored is a Molotov propaganda cocktail shaken not stirred and swallowed with relish.

Quoting a wedge down people's throats of unproven information isn't really the best way to get a point across.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

i would say this particular unrest has nothing to do with the west. Saudi Arabia and Iran have been fighting it out for domination in the region, it's impossible to miss surely? Its a conflict between the 2 branches of their religious cult.

That's not going to be a popular opinion amongst those who think the West is inherently evil and the Middle East misunderstood and so dim they allow the West to manipulate them. Except Israel of course, which is always the bad guy.

These people live in a filthy, corrupt, archaic dictatorship, no wonder they're protesting.This is the place where young people were sentenced to 100 lashes and imprisonment for dancing to Pharrell Williams' "Happy". It'd be ironically funny if it wasn't so bloody sad.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Livia

That's not going to be a popular opinion amongst those who think the West is inherently evil and the Middle East misunderstood and so dim they allow the West to manipulate them. Except Israel of course, which is always the bad guy.

These people live in a filthy, corrupt, archaic dictatorship, no wonder they're protesting.This is the place where young people were sentenced to 100 lashes and imprisonment for dancing to Pharrell Williams' "Happy". It'd be ironically funny if it wasn't so bloody sad.

Great post. I was thinking about that beautiful happy video the other day when the protests were on the news. Hard to understand how something so joyful was punished and in such a vile way.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by jaxie

Where there is communication there is always the possibility of one individual saying to another individual or hosted on a blog 'this is how you make a bomb'. Thats often how terrorism works and people from a wide variety of countries I'm sure contribute. However, trying to suggest this kind of activity is state sponsored is a Molotov propaganda cocktail shaken not stirred and swallowed with relish.

Quoting a wedge down people's throats of unproven information isn't really the best way to get a point across.

Spot on Jaxie!