The people of Iran need you

2009-06-19 07:19:16

#26

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|6802|Nårvei

Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Varegg wrote:
Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Even if the guy had proven himself to be a crazy dictator? Let's go as far as to pose, even if he had already begun the genocide of a people?
Where are you going with this because it's starting to look very far fetched tbh ... or have A-jad proven to be a genocidal maniac yet?
I'm not drawing a parallel between Ahmadinejad and Hitler's actions, more that just because they were elected 'fair and square' doesn't mean it should go uncontested if they're a shitty leader.

I'm especially surprised by some of the responses here supporting the 'fair and square' stance, given that Dinnerjacket wants to eradicate the Western world (or, at the very least, Israel)

Then you should turn the table around ... that's much the same feeling much of the arab world has towards us ...

You can't dispute the election results from a fair and square election ... you can argue against him being a good or bad leader based on his merits as just that but not that he got elected ... a democracy is a democracy even if it is in Iran ...

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2009-06-19 07:35:48

#27

Flecco: iPod is broken.; +1,048|6656|NT, like Mick Dundee

It's a theocracy Varegg....

Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.

2009-06-19 07:38:18

#28

AutralianChainsaw: Member; +65|6190

usmarine wrote:
maybe a-jod won? did anyone think of that?

2009-06-19 08:17:38

#29

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6521|Global Command

CameronPoe wrote:
Ahmedinejad probably won the election without rigging lads. The system is the issue rather than the vote. The comment in the OP is disgraceful 'Don't stop until the Ayatollah is dead'. That's like Europeans calling on Americans 'not to stop until Bush is dead' back in 2007. I hope the protests lead to reforms a la post-Tiananmen China. The fact of the matter is that a moderate was allowed on the ballot and he lost, in accordance with many polls including one from Emmy-award winning pollsters.

Europeans prolly did say that.

Hell, American liberals did.

2009-06-19 08:28:22

#30

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6547

Flecco wrote:
CameronPoe wrote:
Ahmedinejad probably won the election without rigging lads. The system is the issue rather than the vote. The comment in the OP is disgraceful 'Don't stop until the Ayatollah is dead'. That's like Europeans calling on Americans 'not to stop until Bush is dead' back in 2007. I hope the protests lead to reforms a la post-Tiananmen China. The fact of the matter is that a moderate was allowed on the ballot and he lost, in accordance with many polls including one from Emmy-award winning pollsters.
The wide-spread shutdown of communications services like twitter/facebook/mobile phones/international phone services seems a bit iffy though. Wtf is that about?

That's what paranoid authoritarian regimes do when faced with any level of outspoken opposition.

2009-06-19 14:59:51

#31

Flecco: iPod is broken.; +1,048|6656|NT, like Mick Dundee

CameronPoe wrote:
Flecco wrote:
CameronPoe wrote:
Ahmedinejad probably won the election without rigging lads. The system is the issue rather than the vote. The comment in the OP is disgraceful 'Don't stop until the Ayatollah is dead'. That's like Europeans calling on Americans 'not to stop until Bush is dead' back in 2007. I hope the protests lead to reforms a la post-Tiananmen China. The fact of the matter is that a moderate was allowed on the ballot and he lost, in accordance with many polls including one from Emmy-award winning pollsters.
The wide-spread shutdown of communications services like twitter/facebook/mobile phones/international phone services seems a bit iffy though. Wtf is that about?
That's what paranoid authoritarian regimes do when faced with any level of outspoken opposition.

Which accomplishes the exact opposite of what they aim for by doing it. As far as I can see anyway.

Here's hoping Iran doesn't turn into a bloodbath; the demonstrators had better know how far is too far.

Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.

2009-06-19 17:09:31

#32

Harmor: Error_Name_Not_Found; +605|6540|San Diego, CA, USA

Wait for the big crackdown...hundreds if not thousands will die. By not voicing our support of the opposition we are endorsing the slaughter.

2009-06-19 17:20:37

#33

Doctor Strangelove: Real Battlefield Veterinarian.; +1,758|6460

Harmor wrote:
Wait for the big crackdown...hundreds if not thousands will die. By not voicing our support of the opposition we are endorsing the slaughter.

That kind of crackdown is a good way to get the police off your side.

2009-06-19 17:23:00

#34

Flecco: iPod is broken.; +1,048|6656|NT, like Mick Dundee

Harmor wrote:
Wait for the big crackdown...hundreds if not thousands will die. By not voicing our support of the opposition we are endorsing the slaughter.

No, we are endorsing their right to sort their own shit out, on their own.

Iranians have proven twice this century that they can revolt successfully against a shitty government. I don't doubt if the election really was a fraud that they wont be able to do it again.

Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.

2009-06-19 17:39:13

#35

Harmor: Error_Name_Not_Found; +605|6540|San Diego, CA, USA

CameronPoe wrote:
Ahmedinejad probably won the election without rigging lads. The system is the issue rather than the vote. The comment in the OP is disgraceful 'Don't stop until the Ayatollah is dead'. That's like Europeans calling on Americans 'not to stop until Bush is dead' back in 2007. I hope the protests lead to reforms a la post-Tiananmen China. The fact of the matter is that a moderate was allowed on the ballot and he lost, in accordance with many polls including one from Emmy-award winning pollsters.

1) How do we know for sure it wasn't rigged? If it wasn't rigged why are all these people in Iran risking their lives protesting?
2) They were calling for Bush to die...i.e. "Death to America" chants for example.
3) Notice how they 'allowed' a moderate on the ballot...they were chosen not elected in a primary like we have.
4) I would like to know how this 'Emmy-award' winning pollster was able to get information about the election that journalists can't even get. Did they actually poll Iranians in Iran? I and everyone here would be very interested in seeing that data, I'm sure.

Look, there's going to be a big crackdown and hundreds if not thousands of Iranians are going to get killed. When that happens will you THEN support them? Or do you think we shouldn't meddle with a country hell-bent on getting Nuclear weapons. To be honest just saying, "Hey Iranians, we are with you!!!" would be a lot easier than us having another Iraq^2, but I guess that's too hard for liberials like our President to do...sad really.

2009-06-19 17:49:58

#36

Flecco: iPod is broken.; +1,048|6656|NT, like Mick Dundee

Harmor wrote:
CameronPoe wrote:
Ahmedinejad probably won the election without rigging lads. The system is the issue rather than the vote. The comment in the OP is disgraceful 'Don't stop until the Ayatollah is dead'. That's like Europeans calling on Americans 'not to stop until Bush is dead' back in 2007. I hope the protests lead to reforms a la post-Tiananmen China. The fact of the matter is that a moderate was allowed on the ballot and he lost, in accordance with many polls including one from Emmy-award winning pollsters.
1) How do we know for sure it wasn't rigged? If it wasn't rigged why are all these people in Iran risking their lives protesting?
2) They were calling for Bush to die...i.e. "Death to America" chants for example.
3) Notice how they 'allowed' a moderate on the ballot...they were chosen not elected in a primary like we have.
4) I would like to know how this 'Emmy-award' winning pollster was able to get information about the election that journalists can't even get. Did they actually poll Iranians in Iran? I and everyone here would be very interested in seeing that data, I'm sure.

Look, there's going to be a big crackdown and hundreds if not thousands of Iranians are going to get killed. When that happens will you THEN support them? Or do you think we shouldn't meddle with a country hell-bent on getting Nuclear weapons. To be honest just saying, "Hey Iranians, we are with you!!!" would be a lot easier than us having another Iraq^2, but I guess that's too hard for liberials like our President to do...sad really.

Protip: USA and British interference was a major part of what brought about the events that culminated in the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Western domestic interference is the last thing needed in this case. They will sort their shit out on their own.

Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.

2009-06-19 17:54:54

#37

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6592|132 and Bush

Harmor wrote:
CameronPoe wrote:
Ahmedinejad probably won the election without rigging lads. The system is the issue rather than the vote. The comment in the OP is disgraceful 'Don't stop until the Ayatollah is dead'. That's like Europeans calling on Americans 'not to stop until Bush is dead' back in 2007. I hope the protests lead to reforms a la post-Tiananmen China. The fact of the matter is that a moderate was allowed on the ballot and he lost, in accordance with many polls including one from Emmy-award winning pollsters.
1) How do we know for sure it wasn't rigged? If it wasn't rigged why are all these people in Iran risking their lives protesting?
2) They were calling for Bush to die...i.e. "Death to America" chants for example.
3) Notice how they 'allowed' a moderate on the ballot...they were chosen not elected in a primary like we have.
4) I would like to know how this 'Emmy-award' winning pollster was able to get information about the election that journalists can't even get. Did they actually poll Iranians in Iran? I and everyone here would be very interested in seeing that data, I'm sure.

Look, there's going to be a big crackdown and hundreds if not thousands of Iranians are going to get killed. When that happens will you THEN support them? Or do you think we shouldn't meddle with a country hell-bent on getting Nuclear weapons. To be honest just saying, "Hey Iranians, we are with you!!!" would be a lot easier than us having another Iraq^2, but I guess that's too hard for liberials like our President to do...sad really.

No we should NOT MEDDLE in another countries election. Doing so clearly goes against conservative values.

PS, those people dancing around for Mousavi are supporting the candidate that jump-started Irans Nuclear program.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-06-19 17:58:09

#38

Flecco: iPod is broken.; +1,048|6656|NT, like Mick Dundee

Harmor is a bleeding heart liberal.

Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.

2009-06-19 18:46:29

#39

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6592|132 and Bush

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-06-19 21:17:56

#40

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5693|College Park, MD

Kmarion wrote:
PS, those people dancing around for Mousavi are supporting the candidate that jump-started Irans Nuclear program.

I don't mind them having nukes as long as they're not ruled by a crazy fucking Ayatollah and his fanatic puppet.

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg

2009-06-20 07:36:45

#41

Harmor: Error_Name_Not_Found; +605|6540|San Diego, CA, USA

Kmarion wrote:
PS, those people dancing around for Mousavi are supporting the candidate that jump-started Irans Nuclear program.

You are correct he started it when they were at war with Iraq, at least that's my understanding. But I believe that he is more willing than Dinner Jacket to stop the program and open up their country to the West.

2009-06-20 07:40:15

#42

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|6753

ya they need us....for what?

2009-06-20 07:41:36

#43

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6547

Harmor wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
PS, those people dancing around for Mousavi are supporting the candidate that jump-started Irans Nuclear program.
You are correct he started it when they were at war with Iraq, at least that's my understanding. But I believe that he is more willing than Dinner Jacket to stop the program and open up their country to the West.

Are you sitting in on Moussavi policy meetings or something? I only heard his name for the firts time a few weeks ago - how the fuck do you know what he wants to do with the nuclear program???? lol

2009-06-20 08:37:29

#44

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|6753

meh...

govt - 1
protestors - 0
media - 2

thats my score so far

2009-06-20 08:40:23

#45

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6397|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:
No we should NOT MEDDLE in another countries election. Doing so clearly goes against conservative values.

PS, those people dancing around for Mousavi are supporting the candidate that jump-started Irans Nuclear program.

I agree with you on the first part. A true conservative would be more isolationist. Of course, I'm not a conservative.

Second, what's wrong with a stable Iran having nukes? It's understandable that people wouldn't like to see Iran currently have them, but if the current government is overthrown and Mousavi rises to power, I don't see the problem with them having nukes. They would be a good counter to Israel.

2009-07-04 02:43:53

#46

Lai: Member; +186|6143

BUMP!

MJ might have died; alledgedly six people have been executed in Qom yesterday and twentynine more will be executed today in Karaj, without any elaboration on their supposed 'crimes'.

Peacefull protests continue throughout Iran such as yesterday in Khashan University:

2009-07-04 02:45:24

#47

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|6753

old news. people die everywhere.

2009-07-05 00:20:48

#48

Spearhead: Gulf coast redneck hippy; +731|6681|Tampa Bay Florida

it's there country, they're problem, and they do not want anyones help. The sooner people in this country butt the fuck out of this situation the better off the Iranian people will be. If they don't, it will only help the Iranian governments argument that we're "meddling" in their affairs.

of course its great that they're standing up against oppression in Iran, but you all know that 99 percent of Iranians do not give a shit about what people think, especially Americans......

2009-07-05 05:28:30

#49

Zefar: Member; +116|6641|Sweden

I honestly think any country that doesn't belong in Iran and Iraq should just leave and let them deal with their own problem.

We have been there for years but it's still fucked up, so what would some extra help do this time? They just seems to complain, Iraq anyone? I know USA didn't do THAT good but they did something.

When countries down there have stopped firing their guns, stopped being corrupt and fixed up their religion and laws. THEN we can help them with whatever they need.

But right now it would just feel like aiding the wrong side because we have no idea where the money will go too. Specially when they say "Don't stop until the Ayatollah is dead".

For me I don't care what they do down there but as long as fanatics are not the leaders.

BF2S Forums The people of Iran need you

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

usmarine wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Flecco wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Flecco wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Harmor wrote:

Harmor wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Harmor wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Harmor wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Harmor wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Board footer