Iranian recent elections and western terminology and other things (long video).

[epronovost]

America and Europe like England an France, when was the last just war they fought after WW2?

It depends. These are continents not country. Switzerland is in Europe and they haven't waged a war since 1847 for example. They were more or less accidently bombed during WWII and downed a few Allied bombers flying in their airspace and they did sent a few officers in Afghanistan to help train Afghan government troops and police officers. They stayed for four years and were never engaged in combat.

Hell, Iceland has never participated in any war during its entire history. It doesn't even have an army or a legal mechanism to declare war to other nations in its constitution. The closest it got to a military conflict was a fishing dispute with the UK.

 

[Alex22]

It depends. These are continents not country. Switzerland is in Europe and they haven't waged a war since 1847 for example. They were more or less accidently bombed during WWII and downed a few Allied bombers flying in their airspace and they did sent a few officers in Afghanistan to help train Afghan government troops and police officers. They stayed for four years and were never engaged in combat.

Hell, Iceland has never participated in any war during its entire history. It doesn't even have an army or a legal mechanism to declare war to other nations in its constitution. The closest it got to a military conflict was a fishing dispute with the UK.

Okay, I was kind of referring to NATO.

 

[epronovost]

Okay, I was kind of referring to NATO.

Iceland is part of NATO since its foundation in 1949.

 

[Alex22]

Iceland is part of NATO since its foundation in 1949.

So NATO has never invaded a country unjustly? Forget war for the moment, here in Canada they have discovered numerous graves at Residential schools of native children. So Western countries like Canada and the U.S never oppress anyone?

 

[Brickjectivity]

This is a long video, may God raise the honor of word of faith and disgrace that of the oppressors:

The first ten minutes have been very informative, so I'll finish the video. I like what he is saying about the election and the debates. Hearing Iranians talking about it helps build a better idea of how things work.

***late edit***
I'm attaching the auto-generated text of the video as a text file.

My own unedited notes are as follows:

35 man kicked out for positive views of Iran
43 discussing the web sites shut down
BBC persion is anti-Arab. Some channels anti-Muslim. Constant attempt to demoralize the public. Created a dark picture of Iran during the Coronavirus outbreak. BBC trying to keep UK calm but Iran in fear.
47 "Online armies" saying that everyone is opposed to Iran. US trying to silence Iran and to silence dissent. Says this is censorship of Iran.
48 Americans more active in Yemen. Thousands of British advisors "helping Saudis to massacre the people of Yemen."
49:30 Attempting genocide against Iranians through sanctions.
49:54 Google search algorithm gives western outlets about Iran not Iranian sources. All Iranian channels are already sanctioned, removed from the internet, removed from facebook, restricted on google and search engines.
51:00 Surprised how western journalists are completely silent about it.
52:00 the claimed incompetency of Iran is proposed by media, yet the sanctions are crippling. Sanctions cause people to be impoverished. Trade requires middle men, so there is more corruption. When there is a shortage then there is an incentive to steal and sell on the black market.
53:40 The sanctions create corruption. "The objective is to harm people, and those who try to hide this -- they are complicit."
55 Iran would send fuel to Syria, because people couldn't survive without fuel. They send it to Venezuela.
56 The people of Yemen are undergoing "western supported genocide."
57:40 Says Iran, Venezuela and others are being targeted by a "Very evil empire." (USA)
58 talks about unpopularity of Trump, his crudeness, sanctions under him and the murder of Gen. Solomon. Says US helped create ISIS through our "Despicable policies."
59 Jake Sullivan in Wikileaks revealed in Feb 2012 that Al Quaida is on the side of the USA and Syria, and ISIS came out of Al Quaida.
People die under sanctions because they can't find medicine, or their wages collapse. Families fall apart because of financial problems, and this is the objective of European governments -- these very sophisticated politicians who go to operas and things like that...this is what they do. This is their objective: to make people suffer -- to kill people....
1:00:00 ...their objective is control and to maintain their grip on power and keep Western domination...
1:02 Resistance grows stronger as a result of sanctions because of anti-imperialist sentiment.
1:03 They (US coalition) support dictatorships in this region but excuse it by calling them proxies. (Such as the Saudis)
1:05 Nato destroyed the most advanced country (Libya) in Africa.
1:07 Iran has conceded too much to capitalism...forces that have brought about a greater gap between rich and poor...
1:08 War in Gaza showed Iran to be the only country truly supporting the Palestinians.
1:09 Israel humiliated in Gaza war....
1:12 Rania Khalek says Pro western puppets in Lebanon will say they'd rather have no fuel than accept help from Iran.
1:13 Mohammad Marandi says there are also some colonized minds in Iran who will look to western countries and obey.
1:17 Isis a western aided organization.
1:18 Western governments having failed to destroy Syria through their proxies now want to get revengs on the Syrian people through sanctions, so the economic situation now is much worse than when ISIS was near. The Europeans and the Americans are trying to strangle people. They're trying to make them suffer. They want to kill as many women and children and innocent people as possible to bring down the state, so that they can get their way!
1:20 Journalist murdered for reporting that UN trucks were supplying ISIS as it advanced on Damascus.
1:22 Western governments wanted radicalized Muslims to join ISIS.
1:23 USA led the dirty war in Syria. They used Assad, because they wanted to deflect attention away from the reality...just like Duman...
1:24 Europeans and US supplied Hussain with chemical weapons.
1:25 If they are sincere about chemical weapons why don't they represent Iranians in court who have suffered from chemical attacks.​

The above are just talking points he makes or one by the other presenter. They don't represent my views and are simply points of interest in the video, and anyone who wishes can look at the video or check the attached text file to see what has actually been said.

My thoughts are that he throws around the word genocide too casually, but he makes points about sanctions being quite vicious. To me a genocide is a massacre that destroys a generation so completely that it can't recover or almost cannot. I also don't think Europeans or Americans wish others to suffer, but he apparently has gotten that impression.

 

[epronovost]

So NATO has never invaded a country unjustly? Forget war for the moment, here in Canada they have discovered numerous graves at Residential schools of native children. So Western countries like Canada and the U.S never oppress anyone?

No, the Canadian and the US government have oppressed people in different manner at different point in history. For example, Native Americans in Canada and the US are oppressed to various level depending on the time period and area you are referring to.

PS: What country do you think NATO has invaded unjustly? You seem to have a perfect example at the ready.

 

[Alex22]

No, the Canadian and the US government have oppressed people in different manner at different point in history. For example, Native Americans in Canada and the US are oppressed to various level depending on the time period and area you are referring to.

PS: What country do you think NATO has invaded unjustly? You seem to have a perfect example at the ready.

What about the most recent ones. Iraq which was a lie that it had WMD's and the presence of American forces in Syria now looting their oil and training terrorists to overthrow the Assad government? Sure Saddam wasn't a good guy but the U.S and European supplied them with weapons during the Iraq-Iranian War and then they decided they decided they didn't like Saddam? Wtf is up with that? Neither is Assad a good guy either but he is better the Islamic Theocracy that the Daesh terrorists want to impose that the U.S is training.

How about all the times that the U.S messed with South American countries just because they didn't like their governments. We can go even further if you want , are you still going to say that Iran is evil and the U.S and their European allies are angels?

 

[epronovost]

What about the most recent ones. Iraq which was a lie that it had WMD's and the presence of American forces

That wasn't a NATO operation though.

in Syria now looting their oil and training terrorists to overthrow the Assad government?

Except that wasn't a NATO operation either.

Sure Saddam wasn't a good guy but the U.S and European supplied them with weapons during the Iraq-Iranian War and then they decided they decided they didn't like Saddam? Wtf is up with that? Neither is Assad a good guy either but he is better the Islamic Theocracy that the Daesh terrorists want to impose that the U.S is training.

Except US troops never trained nor financed DAESH. In fact, they trained and armed its enemies and led a coalition against DAESH in Syria and Iraq. If Daesh is largely gone, it's thanks to the US and its allies on the terrain, chief of them all the Kurdish troops of the YPG and YPJ.

How about all the times that the U.S messed with South American countries just because they didn't like their governments.

The US hasn't done anything like that in almost 30 years now, but it was very bad indeed. It basically reduced Central America to its current State where a bunch of kleptocrats rule while the people suffer.

We can go even further if you want , are you still going to say that Iran is evil and the U.S and their European allies are angels?

When did I say that they were angels? My only statement of opinion was that I strongly disagree with the idea that all States are oppressors this is a very faulty generalization.

 

[danieldemol]

This is a long video, may God raise the honor of word of faith and disgrace that of the oppressors:

I didn't bother sitting through all of it, but got through about the first 13 minutes.

I have paraphrased some highlights, and will comment on one or two of them.

At approximately 2:35 The speaker says a hardliner is a person opposed to appeasing the west. This struck me as odd since he didn't consider Raisi's history as the man who oversaw the execution of up to 5,000 political prisoners in 1988, the hanging of a man for alcohol consumption in his two years as Iran's chief justice, or the hanging of a wrestler in what human rights groups have described as a "travesty of justice" suspected to be linked to his participation in 2018 anti-government protests.

At approx. 3:40 he says it was Obama's idea to target women and children as diplomacy and waging war on iranians.

4:09 He says Biden wants to keep some sanctions while insisting that Iran uphold the nuclear deal, in other words he wants Iran to uphold alll of it's commitments while Biden only upholds some of his commitments under the deal

5:45 Response to question - Since the presidential candidates were selected was political pluralism upheld- Thats how it is for the time being.

7:23 Only 2 well known candidates were rejected - Ahmadinejad. And Dr Larijani who only got 3 of 12 votes of the panel that allows candidates to run.

My response is what about Iran’s reformist vice-president, Ishaq Jahangiri, and former deputy interior minister Mostafa Tajzadeh who were also left out. Were they also unknown? And why wasn't Dr Larijani allowed to run anyway?

13:10 Blames low voteout on coronavirus, incompetent prior government leading to apathy amongst voters, and Larijani being rejected.

In my opinion

 

[Brickjectivity]

This struck me as odd since he didn't consider Raisi's history as the man who oversaw the execution of up to 5,000 political prisoners in 1988,

He talked about that later. First he said that was the decision of the ministry of justice, and also also he said those were some very murderous prisoners that did things like bomb windows. He would say that 'Political prisoners' was too kind a description.

I thought his comments about the elections sounded reasonable. He also made the point that children of public figures did not inherit power, which I thought significant.

His views on ISIS seemed confused, but that did not surprise me. In general it was a very confusing topic for everyone not present.

 

[Link]

Brickjectivity, I appreciate your objective observations. I really have to make a thread about ISIS and al-Nusra (who all joined ISIS practically) and reveal the truth about this.

But regarding elections and why Larijani didn't make it, he explained, it was a decision by the people who always select the candidates. I agree too it was a mistake, but it was their mistake, they only voted 3 votes (out of 8) for him, and so he didn't make in, which was odd, but it was their blunder, not Khamanei telling them.

Also, like explained, the winner was going to win by landslide and there has been upsets in the past, but this time around, because of the 8 year failure by reformists, everyone wanted him practically. For a year he has been this popular and everyone was almost certain he was going to win for a while by his popularity.

Also his main opponent (the head of Iranian bank) is not a nobody, and anyone was going to steal the popularity from him, it would have been him, but he failed in the debates to beat him.

 

[Link]

Also, something to note, conservatives in Iran AKA hardliners, are leftist in economics unlike your right wing in the west. And reformist (aka moderates) are right in economy, they are extreme capatalist. People seeing their method doesn't work, so are voting and inshallah I hope forever this be the case from now on, for conservatives.

I hope the government does a good job and I pray that the government stays in the hands of conservatives from now on and we don't give it ever again in the hands of the weak spirited western empire butt kissers, and this be the course of elections till I die. I pray this oh Lord, Amen. Oh God we saw what they did, make us learn a lesson from it and never give it back to their hands. Amen.

 

[danieldemol]

He talked about that later. First he said that was the decision of the ministry of justice, and also also he said those were some very murderous prisoners that did things like bomb windows. He would say that 'Political prisoners' was too kind a description.

Let's call them terrorist prisoners that were safely isolated then murdered on the basis of whether they said their prayers etc if he doesnt like the description of "political prisoners".

How do you feel about the death sentence for those who can be safely isolated? (especially on the grounds of their personal piety) Personally I oppose it.

Also in a country where even in 2021 well known candidates were disqualified, what peaceful process was available for change back in 1988? Did you know that candidates can be disqualified from running on the base of the lack of personal piety? What options did a bunch of people some of whom were atheists have for being part of the political process?

Finally are you overlooking that Raisi was part of the judiciary that had a man executed for drinking alcohol, or what about the wrestler who was killed suspected to be for his involvement in anti government protests? Are these two insignificant enough in your eyes to be not worthy of justice?

In my opinion.

 

[danieldemol]

Thought this was relevant;

1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners - Wikipedia

'The 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners was a series of state-sponsored execution of political prisoners across Iran, starting on 19 July 1988 and lasting for approximately five months.[1][2][3][4][5][6] The majority of those killed were supporters of the People's Mujahedin of Iran, although supporters of other leftist factions, including the Fedaian and the Tudeh Party of Iran (Communist Party), were executed as well.[7][8]'

'Great care was taken to keep the killings undercover, and the government of Iran currently denies their having taken place.[16]'

'A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini had ordered the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners through a secret fatwa. In 2016, an audio recording was posted online of a high-level official meeting that took place in August 1988 between Hossein Ali Montazeri and the officials responsible for the mass killings in Tehran. In the recording, Hossein Ali Montazeri is heard saying that the ministry of intelligence used the MEK's armed incursion as a pretext to carry out the mass killings, which "had been under consideration for several years."[62][63]'

'Motivations for why the victims were executed vary, but one of the most common theories advanced is that they were in retaliation for the 1988 attack on the western borders of Iran by the People's Mujahedin of Iran. This, however, does not account for the targeting of other leftist groups who did not take part in nor supported the Mujahedin invasion.[17]

The killings operated outside legislation and trials were not concerned with establishing the guilt or innocence of defendants.[18][19]'

My interpretation of all this is that it appears that a portion of the prisoners were purely political prisoners, and considering the Iranian government lies to the extent of denying the prisoners were killed at all, it is hardly surprising that bottom kissers to the Iranian government such as the man in this video are saying what appear to be half truths in that some of them may have been murderers and terrorists, but not necessarily all of them.

It is also interesting that @Link is trying to frame this as a leftist vs capitalist discussion in spite of the history of the Fedaian and Tudeh party members being executed.

In my opinion.

 

[Kooky]

1:23 USA led the dirty war in Syria. They used Assad, because they wanted to deflect attention away from the reality...just like Duman...
​

That's especially rich, considering that out of the many powers with interests in the region, only Russia and Iran were fully backing Assad in the Syrian Civil War from day one, both for their own geostrategic reasons.

 

[Kooky]

It is also interesting that @Link is trying to frame this as a leftist vs capitalist discussion in spite of the history of the Fedaian and Tudeh party members being executed.

In my opinion.

To be fair, neither America's opposition to the Iranian regime nor Iran's opposition to America have anything at all to do with the gruesome fate of leftist activists in Iran. In a world where Iran was still closely aligned with the US, they would likely have been praised for rooting out "terrorist movements" in this way (much like the Shah did after Mossadegh had been deposed, and for which the American press praised him as a forward thinking and progressive leader, and not at all the bloodthirsty tyrant he had been for most of his reign).

Fact is that Western relationship towards Iran - as in fact, Western relationship to many Middle Eastern regimes - has never been based on the evaluation of democratic values, or even shared interests among our people; it has been about exploitative trade relations at its best, and maintaining blatant, brutal control over Iran's resources at its worst.

 

[danieldemol]

To be fair, neither America's opposition to the Iranian regime nor Iran's opposition to America have anything at all to do with the gruesome fate of leftist activists in Iran. In a world where Iran was still closely aligned with the US, they would likely have been praised for rooting out "terrorist movements" in this way (much like the Shah did after Mossadegh had been deposed, and for which the American press praised him as a forward thinking and progressive leader, and not at all the bloodthirsty tyrant he had been for most of his reign).

Fact is that Western relationship towards Iran - as in fact, Western relationship to many Middle Eastern regimes - has never been based on the evaluation of democratic values, or even shared interests among our people; it has been about exploitative trade relations at its best, and maintaining blatant, brutal control over Iran's resources at its worst.

I'm not sure whether I should take the bait here or not.

Do you feel that we should not be concerned with human rights abuse in Iran because of some negative past foreign relations this monolithic entity you refer to as "the west" may have had?
If you feel we should be concerned then lets not be distracted by the past from our goal.

In my opinion.