Iraqi protesters storm U.S. embassy in Baghdad

[Cookiegod]

This is an interesting investigation on the alleged connections between AQ and the Qods Force. The 9/11 Commission Report also discusses the links between Iran and Sunni terrorism, although it doesn't mention the QF by name.

ye and Saddam Hussein was basically al Qaeda.

IRGC fought side by side with Murrica against the Taliban in Afghanistan. The 2001 Sunni uprising in Herat mentions one famous name amongst the US allies. It also helped the US through its influence over the allied Hazara militias. That cooperation lasted until the US put Iran on their "axis of evil" list and started preparing for another invasion. But still. There's no credible link whatsoever between al Qaeda or other Sunni extremists and the Iranians. The US, however? Very different relationship with Sunni extremists.

I'd have some Iraqi WMD's to sell to you, but I take it you already bought them.

[Cope]

ye and Saddam Hussein was basically al Qaeda.

IRGC fought side by side with Murrica against the Taliban in Afghanistan. The 2001 Sunni uprising in Herat mentions one famous name amongst the US allies. It also helped the US through its influence over the allied Hazara militias. That cooperation lasted until the US put Iran on their "axis of evil" list and started preparing for another invasion. But still. There's no credible link whatsoever between al Qaeda or other Sunni extremists and the Iranians. The US, however? Very different relationship with Sunni extremists.

I'd have some Iraqi WMD's to sell to you, but I take it you already bought them.

Because of course, the Taliban and AQ are the same thing and Iran would never dream of trying to play the US and Sunni terrorists off against each other.

[Ludicus]

As for Iran, they went through a pretty bad humiliation..

From your perspective.Read below.
---

Too Important to Kill: After Soleimani London Review of Books, Blog. Read the whole article.
About the LRB

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

For a full calendar month, there won’t be a paywall of any kind anywhere on the site. This means that not only all 24 of this year’s issues, but also our entire archive, dating back to 25 October 1979 and containing almost 17,500 articles, will be free to read, for everyone, without limits, until midday on Wednesday 15 January.

Try it out.
Excerpts,
"American assassinations by drone have been routine since the Obama era, but Qasem Soleimani, who was killed while leaving Baghdad airport on 3 January, wasn’t the head of a terrorist organisation but a state official: a major-general in Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and the leader of its Quds Force, the unit responsible for external and clandestine operations.

He came to embody the nationalism that has sustained the Islamic Republic, in spite of its often brutal authoritarianism, and which has been fed for more than half a century by American threats and humiliation, ever since the CIA-backed coup against Mossadegh in 1953.

As Patrick Cockburn explains (in the next piece in this issue*), Iran’s leaders were astounded by the millions of mourners who turned out in the streets.
Thanks to Trump, a regime that had become increasingly estranged from its own people saw extraordinary scenes of collective sorrow and rage.

But most Iranians were not there to assert their loyalty to the Islamic Republic: they were there to assert their wounded patriotism, and to pay their respects to a man who, in their eyes, had looked after Iran’s interests in the face of American, Israeli and Saudi aggression, and who had protected them from IS.

Even former members of the shah’s government expressed their condolences – and their anger. That American commentators compared the killing of Soleimani, an enemy of Sunni jihadism, to the assassination of Osama bin Laden only added insult, and ignorance, to injury.
Most generals have blood on their hands, and you don’t make peace with your friends but with your enemies, preferably enemies with the power to make a deal stick. Both Bush and Obama had ruled out killing Soleimani for that reason.

He was too important to be eliminated, and had proved his usefulness after the invasion of Afghanistan, when he worked with the US to oppose the Taliban. He’d even briefly contemplated a fundamental recasting of relations with Washington, until Bush placed Iran in the ‘axis of evil’ alongside North Korea and Saddam’s Iraq. Obama, too, recognised Soleimani as an adversary who might eventually become a partner, if not an ally.

Trump and his secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, who lobbied for Soleimani’s assassination against the advice of Trump’s military counsellors, aren’t interested in establishing a relationship of mutual respect and recognition with the Islamic Republic.

Trump’s actions towards Iran – withdrawing from the nuclear agreement, imposing new and punitive sanctions (intended to bring Iran’s oil exports to ‘zero’), designating the Revolutionary Guard a foreign terrorist organisation, and now assassinating Soleimani – point to a desire not only for regime change but total capitulation. The goal is a regional order in which Israel maintains control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem and has the exclusive right to nuclear weapons, and Saudi Arabia is given a free hand in Yemen and Bahrain

Iran’s real crime isn’t terrorism or its interference in Syria, but its wish to be recognised as a regional power. Negotiations, as Trump and Pompeo see it, are for sissies; Iran only understands the language of force. As neoconservatives used to say at the start of America’s invasion of Iraq, ‘Boys go to Baghdad: real men go to Tehran.’
Trump isn’t about to go to Tehran, not yet. For now, he is content to attack Iran inside Iraq, just as Iran is content to attack American interests in Iraq. (Seventeen years after the invasion, Iraq remains a theatre of war between its not-so-former occupier and its most powerful neighbour.)

Hizbullah, the most powerful party in Lebanon, is Iran’s cherished ally. On 6 January its secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah, gave a speech about Soleimani’s death from his bunker. It was broadcast on al-Manar, Hizbullah’s TV channel, to a gathering of thousands of supporters. Nasrallah said that the ‘resistance axis’ would respond to the assassination by fulfilling Soleimani’s ambition to drive all American forces from the region, starting with Iraq. But what was most striking, and most surreal, was his insistence that American civilians were not to be harmed: only military targets were legitimate. Compared to Trump, Nasrallah sounded like a ‘just war’ theorist.

The language of violence, a crucial aspect of Trump’s rhetorical arsenal, is one expression of the superpower privilege that defines the American presidency.
When the Saudis murdered and dismembered Jamal Khashoggi, Trump denied that Mohammed Bin Salman had ordered the killing. With US support, Israel is able to maintain an enigmatic discretion about Mossad assassinations, such as the 2008 killing of the Hezbollah military leader Imad Mughniyeh.

In the American ‘war on terror’, killing baddies (invariably Muslims) and then triumphantly claiming responsibility has become a presidential prerogative. Trump, who boasted that he could shoot a man on Fifth Avenue without losing votes, takes special pleasure in this. It’s his way of saying that Americans have sovereign power over life and death".
------
(*)
Blundering into War Patrick Cockburn read the whole article.

Excerpt,
"Since Soleimani’s death, Trump and his cabinet have demonised him as a terrorist mastermind responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers. In Iran and Shia communities across the region, he has been presented as a hero, martyred for his country and his faith.

The two approaches combine to produce a somewhat exaggerated picture of Soleimani’s significance and a distorted image of his two-track role as the head of the Quds Force, carrying out covert operations and pursuing open diplomacy in parts of the Middle East with significant Shia populations.

He would certainly have given the orders for the drone and missile attacks on Saudi oil facilities at Abqaiq and al-Khurais last September, but he was also a highly visible regional politician, acting as an intermediary between different national, ethnic and religious leaders.

The Iraqi prime minister Adil Abdul Mahdi says that Soleimani had flown into Baghdad to discuss measures to reduce hostility between Iran and Saudi Arabia: ‘He came to deliver a message from Iran in response to the message we had delivered from the Saudis to Iran.’ Trump has denied this, but it is highly likely that what Mahdi says is true.

The US likes to hide the degree to which it has been Iran’s de facto partner, as well as its rival, in Iraq ever since Saddam Hussein (effectively a US ally during the Iran-Iraq war) invaded Kuwait in 1990. The Iranians, for their part, have been discreet about their cooperation with Washington. After the US invasion in 2003, the Americans often dealt with Soleimani, knowingly but at a distance".

[Cookiegod]

Because of course, the Taliban and AQ are the same thing and Iran would never dream of trying to play the US and Sunni terrorists off against each other.

Way to go and dismantle the entire justification for the American invasion of Afghanistan.
Other than that: That sentence illustrates perfectly your entire line of reasoning. Iran is collaborating with AQ because you want them to be doing that.

[Cope]

Way to go and dismantle the entire justification for the American invasion of Afghanistan.

The Americans did not invade Afghanistan because they thought the Tabliban was Al Qaeda. That's why we bother distinguishing them by name...as the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Other than that: That sentence illustrates perfectly your entire line of reasoning. Iran is collaborating with AQ because you want them to be doing that.

Why would I want Iran to be collaborating with AQ?

[Infidel144]

There were thousands of Arabs in Afghanistan fighting and supporting the local Afghans. Chechens, Pakistani, Turkmen and Arab fighters are everywhere actually. They got their experience there and exported it back from were they came from.

And the foreign fighters came in with their own lines of supports. US aid was directed at the native Afghan mujahideen.

[The Gurkhan]

The facts are indeed quite clear. Your sources don’t back up your claims nor your false equivalence between the US and Iran, despite your bizarre and unsuccessful attempts to shoehorn your claims onto what your sources actually say. Continuing to lambaste your own source is also an interesting but futile tactic.

Your American Conservative article details Saudi, Turkish and Qatari purchases of weapons from suppliers connected through CIA contacts, which the Saudis, Turks and Qataris then regifted to their own proxies, including Islamists, in defiance of US policy. Consequently, there was public pushback from the Obama Admin. Direct US arms sales to Syrian rebels were made on the condition they not be given over to extremists/terrorists, but when the latter attacked the groups receiving US arms, weapons were looted by Islamists.

It also correctly highlights the duplicity of this line of thinking as being ultimately disingenuous. This was purely an exercise in face saving sophistry for some measure of deniability to being an accessory in providing support for militant Salafi jihadism.

You would have to be functionally retarded or just an American apparently to think this in any way mitigates the US or doesn't make it culpable.

If I knowingly provide material support to an individual I am acutely aware intends to commit a crime with it, I am at the very least morally bankrupt or an imbecile. Most likely also an accessory.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As the Idlib offensive began, the CIA-supported groups were getting TOW missiles in larger numbers, and they now used them with great effectiveness against the Syrian army tanks. That was the beginning of a new phase of the war, in which U.S. policy was to support an alliance between “relatively moderate” groups and the al Nusra Front.The new alliance was carried over to Aleppo, where jihadist groups close to Nusra Front formed a new command called Fateh Halab (“Aleppo Conquest”) with nine armed groups in Aleppo province which were getting CIA assistance. The CIA-supported groups could claim that they weren’t cooperating with al Nusra Front because the al Qaeda franchise was not officially on the list of participants in the command. But as the report on the new command clearly implied, this was merely a way of allowing the CIA to continue providing weapons to its clients, despite their de facto alliance with al Qaeda.

The significance of all this is clear: by helping its Sunni allies provide weapons to al Nusra Front and its allies and by funneling into the war zone sophisticated weapons that were bound to fall into al Nusra hands or strengthen their overall military position, U.S. policy has been largely responsible for having extended al Qaeda’s power across a significant part of Syrian territory. The CIA and the Pentagon appear to be ready to tolerate such a betrayal of America’s stated counter-terrorism mission. Unless either Congress or the White House confronts that betrayal explicitly, as Tulsi Gabbard’s legislation would force them to do, U.S. policy will continue to be complicit in the consolidation of power by al Qaeda in Syria, even if the Islamic State is defeated there.

Again highlighted for anybody unfortunate enough to be following this farce of discussion. The most effective way for the US to stop Turkey and Saudi funnelling the funds it provided them to terrorist groups, would be for the US to not funnel funds full stop. As any idiot knows, they ultimately needed these groups to fight Assad, so the funding continued. The piecemeal occasional statements critiquing allies and clients were just that. Piecemeal and largely meaningless.

Your WaPo article further indicated the program’s reliance on regional partners like the Saudis and Turks meant the US had ineffective control over the support it was providing them, which was also too anemic to give the rebels a decisive advantage. This gave Russia time to swoop in, and once the Trump Admin 180’d on support for the rebels, the latter groups which were backed by the USG feared they’d be targeted by extremists seeking retribution against groups associated with the US.

Your own sources contradict your own false claims that “the US invested hundreds of millions to finance terrorism.... the US itself directly started providing lethal aid to its own terrorist groups....” These false claims underpin your false equivalence to and defense of a terrorist regime in Tehran that directly (Quds/IRGC/“diplomats”) and indirectly (Hezbollah) supports and commissions of acts of terrorism around the world.

You just don't really know much about Syria and US involvement in the conflict. David Ignatius is obviously downplaying the militant Salafi element in an attempt to spin this as an opportunity lost rather than an inherently wrong thing to do. Shift blame away from the US onto unreliable dastardly regional allies misappropriating US support and pursue the narrative of a moderate rebellion betrayed in order to explain the innate eventually impossible to obfuscate extremist element of the US proxies themselves. It's really just a line of argument to salve the consciousness of many a confused American once the reality of US terrorist enabling became evident.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Unfortunately, the head of the Syrian National Coalition seems to completely disregard what Al Nusrah represents, and to be just fine with including the al Qaeda branch under the coalition’s tent. And lest we think he is alone, 29 Syrian opposition groups have signed a petition that not only condemns the US’s designation, but says “we are all Al Nusrah,” and urges their supporters to raise Al Nusrah’s flag (which of course is al Qaeda’s flag).

This was not hindsight and was abundantly clear as far back as 2012. Even then we also have the comical crooked sophistry from the US government.

https://www.longwarjournal.org/archi...ition_urge.php

Despite that it is still absolutely correct to highlight the David Ignatius article only for its open appraisal of the hundreds of millions of dollars going towards maiming and killing 100,000 personnel of a sovereign state not at war with the US. Even if you are blatantly ill informed about Syria and US support of violent jihadist groups, this cast iron fact is direct evidence of US support for terrorism.

You’ve mentioned several times you “don’t care” about facts which contradict your assertions. Am I supposed to care that you don’t care?

Is your decision to rephrase the same debunked drivel supposed to make it more compelling?

It isn’t unless you’re you, apparently.


I’m not sure what you’re on about at this point given you were wrong about the US never allowing Iranian hegemony. It’s odd you’d bring up massive oppression and the interests of the Iranian populace while defending the current regime in Tehran.

Yes my lack of care is important. I'm not arguing against Iran being behind supporting what would be defined as proxy terror. My point as evidenced repeatedly is that the US has an equally solid background of doing the same. Only they support groups from a movement whose other followers are the primary cause of mass casualty atrocities in western streets currently. Clearly the boon Salafi jihadism gifts US geopolitics is worth the carnage European cities have to endure on occasion. God Bless America.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Yes my lack of care is important. I'm not arguing against Iran being behind supporting what would be defined as proxy terror. My point as evidenced repeatedly is that the US has an equally solid background of doing the same.

Except you’ve presented no evidence for such a claim and your own sources contradict it so instead you ramble on, arguing with your own sources about “saving my consciousness.” Tehran not only deliberately uses Hezbollah as her proxy terror arm, the IRGC, Quds, and Iranian diplomatic apparatus directly commission acts of terror themselves. The fraudulence of your bogus talking points has by now been thoroughly exposed, ironically by your own attempts to prove them.

[Cyclops]

Except you’ve presented no evidence for such a claim and your own sources contradict it so instead you ramble on, arguing with your own sources about “saving my consciousness.” Tehran not only deliberately uses Hezbollah as her proxy terror arm, the IRGC, Quds, and Iranian diplomatic apparatus directly commission acts of terror themselves. The fraudulence of your bogus talking points has by now been thoroughly exposed, ironically by your own attempts to prove them.

Various US agencies have also directly and indirectly supported terror groups, from Central and South America to Asia and Africa, including Islamic groups. This is common knowledge and if you don't have this information I'd suggest some wide based reading before returning to the discussion. Basic subject headings might include the Mujahudeen in Afghanistan and the Contras in Central America. I don't know of too many terror organisations currently backed by the US apart from the KSA, but as a nominal liberal republic the US does take more care with window dressing than insane theocracies looking to earn Jihad brownie points by bashing Israel and her allies.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Various US agencies have also directly and indirectly supported terror groups, from Central and South America to Asia and Africa, including Islamic groups. This is common knowledge and if you don't have this information I'd suggest some wide based reading before returning to the discussion. Basic subject headings might include the Mujahudeen in Afghanistan and the Contras in Central America. I don't know of too many terror organisations currently backed by the US apart from the KSA, but as a nominal liberal republic the US does take more care with window dressing than insane theocracies looking to earn Jihad brownie points by bashing Israel and her allies.

Saudi Arabia is not “a terror organization backed by the US.” Militias fighting the Soviet military in Afghanistan and Congress’ ban on support for the Contras is not equivalent to Tehran’s relationship with Hezbollah, a terrorist organization, nor her deliberate and direct funding and commission of terrorism around the world as a matter of official policy. It is the regime’s raison d’etre. I covered this extensively in multiple prior posts, and I’m not really interested in batting down every conceivable whataboutist false equivalence one may try to make for the sake of argument.

Students gathered outside at least two universities, Sharif and Amir Kabir, reports said, initially to pay respect to the victims. Protests turned angry in the evening.
The semi-official Fars news agency carried a rare report of the unrest, saying up to 1,000 people had chanted slogans against leaders and tore up pictures of Soleimani.

The students called for those responsible for the downing the plane, and those they said had covered up the action, to be prosecuted.
Chants included "commander-in-chief resign", referring to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, and "death to liars".

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51079965

Hats off to these people, especially when they know they could easily be killed or imprisoned for this act of defiance like their countrymen were a couple months ago, but proceeded anyway.

[The Gurkhan]

Saudi Arabia is not “a terror organization backed by the US.” Militias fighting the Soviet military in Afghanistan and Congress’ ban on support for the Contras is not equivalent to Tehran’s relationship with Hezbollah, a terrorist organization, nor her deliberate and direct funding and commission of terrorism around the world as a matter of official policy. It is the regime’s raison d’etre. I covered this extensively in multiple prior posts, and I’m not really interested in batting down every conceivable whataboutist false equivalence one may try to make for the sake of argument.

It's very difficult for people here to debate somebody when they approach a given topic from a position of such stunning ignorance. On top of a general obvious lack of awareness regarding proxy conflict in Syria, the post you are referring to also mentions several other noted instances of US support for international terrorism (one being clear cut and other more subjective) which you also probably know little to nothing about.

Hats off to these people, especially when they know they could easily be killed or imprisoned for this act of defiance like their countrymen were a couple months ago, but proceeded anyway.

Indeed. Shows the higher moral calibre of the general Iranian populace. Extremely rarely do ordinary Americans spontaneously protest directly against their military in the immediate aftermath of any of the many acts of negligence, incompetence or outright criminality committed over the years by said military.

The usual suspects are of course comically probably thinking this automatically makes them pro-American.

[Vanoi]

Indeed. Shows the higher moral calibre of the general Iranian populace. Extremely rarely do ordinary Americans spontaneously protest directly against their military in the immediate aftermath of any of the many acts of negligence, incompetence or outright criminality committed over the years by said military.

The usual suspects are of course comically probably thinking this automatically makes them pro-American.

Reasons for their protesting include more than just the plane incident. The downing of the Ukrainian flight has only helped old issues re-surface. I'm sure the Iranian government has nothing to worry about though. They'll quash these protests fairly quick.

[Lord Thesaurian]

It's very difficult for people here to debate somebody when they approach a given topic from a position of such stunning ignorance. On top of a general obvious lack of awareness regarding proxy conflict in Syria, the post you are referring to also mentions several other noted instances of US support for international terrorism (one being clear cut and other more subjective) which you also probably know little to nothing about.

If anything, debunking your false claims using your own sources would suggest I know more about the subject you’re trying to debate than you do. You’ve spent more time arguing with what your own sources have stated than you have with anything I’ve asserted.

Indeed. Shows the higher moral calibre of the general Iranian populace.

I’m not sure what the above is supposed to convey other than your own prejudice.

[Heathen Hammer]

US doesn't really have much moral high ground over Iran, given how since 80s US is the biggest source of aid to terrorist groups in Middle East after Saudi Arabia.

[Ludicus]

US doesn't really have much moral high ground over Iran, given how since 80s US is the biggest source of aid to terrorist groups in Middle East after Saudi Arabia.

I have been thinking about it. America's cynicism is obvious given historical precedents.As an example, the destruction of the Iranian airplane flight 655 in 1988.The U.S. government issued paid reparations in 1996 to settle a suit brought in the International Court of Justice regarding the destruction of the Iranian airplane flight 655 in 1988, however the United States never released a formal apology or acknowledgment of wrongdoing.
The Reagan administration told lie after lie about the incident. It claimed the Vincennes was in international waters at the time of the attack It was not. It said the ship acted in self defense against the "descending" plane; Flight 455 was climbing when it was shot down. It also claimed the flight had strayed from its usual route. It did not. It told the United Nations that the Vincennes was rushing to defend merchant shipping from Iranian attack, a complete fabrication. Reagan on Iran Air 655 - Reagan statement)


In more detail- things get even more interesting. Read slowly.
Ukraine in the Crossfire: Chris Kaspar de Ploeg ... - Amazon.com

The commander of a nearby US vessel, David Carlson, wrote in the US Naval Proceedings that he "wondered aloud in disbelief as "the Vincennes announced its intentions" to attack what was clearly a civilian aircraft. He speculated that "Robo Cruiser" as the Vincennes was called because its aggressive behavior, "felt a need to prove the viability of Aegis ( the sophisticated anti-aircraft system on the cruise) in the Persian Gulf and that they hankered for the opportunity to show their stuff."

Two years later, the commander of the Vincennes and officer in charge of anti-air warfare were given the Legion of Merit award for "exceptionally meritorious conduct in performance of outstanding service" and for the "calm and professional atmosphere" during the period of destruction of the Iranian Airbus"

President Reagan blamed the Iranians and defended the actions of the warship, which "followed standing orders and widely publicized procedures firing to protect itself against possible attack".
His successor, Bush I, proclaimed that "I will never apologize" for the United States-I don't care what the facts are...I'm not an apologize-for-America kind of guy."

"We know why Ukrainians and Russians are in their countries, but one might ask what exactly the Vincennes was doing in Iranian waters. The answer is simple. It was defending Washington's great friend Saddam Hussein in his murderous aggression against Iran"

[Phier]

https://streamable.com/450mj


Interesting that Iranians are showing more respect to the US flag than our own citizens.

Just about no one in this thread has any first hand knowledge of life in Iran currently.

I do have second hand from a colleague who immigrated in the mid 2000's. He grew up after the revolution from a mostly secular family. The government basically forced the anti-US protesting and did so for the useful idiots in the western media and their consumers. When Khomeini died he was studying for finals he told me and had no idea it happened, he was in hermit mode. So hes on his way to school and it turns out it was the day of the funeral. He was beaten up because he wasn't wearing black (being he had no idea) and wasn't walking the funeral route. I really feel for the Iranian people, they got a raw deal from the revolution and I personally think of any nation there can turn around the backward direction I see Islam headed in IMO, its Iran.

[Cyclops]

I wonder how badly Trump has to make the US look before his own party kill him? Kennedy pulled some awesome stunts in Cuba before his own party shot him in their heartland: I think it was the nuclear war he nearly started that got him killed. I'd say Trump's not on that level yet, he nearly authorised a Saudi invasion of Qatar and openly supported a hostile leader against his own intel services so he's embarrassing rather than dangerous to the US at this point.

I don't think they'd shoot him of course. He'd have a heart attack on his golf course or some other plausible lie.

Saudi Arabia is not “a terror organization backed by the US.” Militias fighting the Soviet military in Afghanistan and Congress’ ban on support for the Contras is not equivalent to Tehran’s relationship with Hezbollah, a terrorist organization, nor her deliberate and direct funding and commission of terrorism around the world as a matter of official policy. It is the regime’s raison d’etre. I covered this extensively in multiple prior posts, and I’m not really interested in batting down every conceivable whataboutist false equivalence one may try to make for the sake of argument....

Cool, save your rhetorical arms from further batting and keep them over your eyes instead. I'm certainly no fan of the Iranian theocracy but if you live in a world where Saudi Arabia (along with the UAE) are not the fount and source of a tidal wave of salafist terror abetted by the US good luck to you. In my country when they arrest an imam for preaching terror its not in the Shia mosques, and the terrorists in my region (like every other region) get most of their money from Riyadh and the gulf.

Iran is getting wagged like hell. It keeps the oil billionaires happy (most important US electorate, and don't they hate it when locals break contracts), teases the Pentecostals that Armageddon is close, gives the rednecks someone to hate this week (can't be Mexicans all the time) and it serves as a cheap phony war for Trump's reelection tilt. I guess he wants another Syria in the region?

Be good for Iran to have a fair and stable government but that's not what the US is offering, is it? They had the Shah before who made the Ayatollahs look good. In Syria we were trying to topple Assad OK, he's a bastard but we were replacing him with Salafist rapists? Trump is not doing this for the good of Iran and our "friends" in the region earlier this century flew several planes into the WTC. Spare me "false equivalences", the US is an ally of the worst country on Earth and the chief source of terrorism on the planet.

[Heathen Hammer]

I wonder how badly Trump has to make the US look before his own party kill him?

If swamp assassinates Trump, there will be a civil war, which swamp would definitely lose. Heck, if Trump would just have a stroke or something, there'd be a civil war. So its in the best interest of globalist 5th column that Trump never does as little as cough until the end of his second term.

[Nebaki]

https://streamable.com/450mj


Interesting that Iranians are showing more respect to the US flag than our own citizens.

Just about no one in this thread has any first hand knowledge of life in Iran currently.

I do have second hand from a colleague who immigrated in the mid 2000's. He grew up after the revolution from a mostly secular family. The government basically forced the anti-US protesting and did so for the useful idiots in the western media and their consumers. When Khomeini died he was studying for finals he told me and had no idea it happened, he was in hermit mode. So hes on his way to school and it turns out it was the day of the funeral. He was beaten up because he wasn't wearing black (being he had no idea) and wasn't walking the funeral route. I really feel for the Iranian people, they got a raw deal from the revolution and I personally think of any nation there can turn around the backward direction I see Islam headed in IMO, its Iran.

These Flags are the Main Reasons why Iran is now under such a Political/Economical/Social condition - The benefits that was founded during time of the Shah are now exhausted and the Iranians knew that.

[The Gurkhan]

https://streamable.com/450mj


Interesting that Iranians are showing more respect to the US flag than our own citizens.

Just about no one in this thread has any first hand knowledge of life in Iran currently.

I do have second hand from a colleague who immigrated in the mid 2000's. He grew up after the revolution from a mostly secular family. The government basically forced the anti-US protesting and did so for the useful idiots in the western media and their consumers. When Khomeini died he was studying for finals he told me and had no idea it happened, he was in hermit mode. So hes on his way to school and it turns out it was the day of the funeral. He was beaten up because he wasn't wearing black (being he had no idea) and wasn't walking the funeral route. I really feel for the Iranian people, they got a raw deal from the revolution and I personally think of any nation there can turn around the backward direction I see Islam headed in IMO, its Iran.

That's just as likely them protesting against the government as a showing of defiance and less so supporting American thuggery or demonstrating any love for the US. Those could be the flags of any state and they would do the same.

Lots of us know Iranians we can use to make proclamations about. Every Iranian I have met "secular" or otherwise, permanent diaspora or student doesn't much care for your country. They aren't stupid and actually have a grasp of history.