Support NeoGAF

[Atrus]

I honestly don't support any of them... It would be wiser to have a clear cut politician (Ahmedinenajad) or you can say naive politician that speaks his mind and we can find out what exactly they are doing instead of hiding or sugar coat everything and keep on doing what they are doing ala Mouasavi in the disguise of being liberal/leftest.

A former Prime Minister of Iran is a naive politician? I love how your position smacks of the same disingenious criticisms levied against Obama.

Do we really know Obama? Is he really an American citizen? Is he just a naive young politician? Could he be the anti-Christ? Is he a secret Muslim? Is he a radical black? Is Obama a Marxist?

By your twisted logic, the incumbant should always win because they are more experienced at the job than the challenger and you know precisely where their failures lie. Perhaps you loved GW. Bush's 2nd term? Maybe this is why you're advocating for a man with similar predilictions in Iran to win another term?

 

[Zapages]

Mousavi is no secular liberal in the western tradition. No such person would be approved by the Mullahs to run and even they did approve such a person, that person would lose in Iran.

However, Mousavi is indeed different than Ahmedinenajad and made it clear by saying Ahmedinenajad was an embarrassment due to his Holocaust denying and nutty due to his "I had a green glow while talking at the UN and no one in the audience even blinked for 20 minutes."

Those two points are totally different man... As for the Holocaust, I have to agree with Mousavi on that... But as I said with Ahmedineaijad we know what he thinks because is open...

Let the guy have two minutes of religious fame. As for green glow he was attracting the conservative Muslims... In other words he felt power standing there and talking in front of everyone.

 

[Zapages]

A former Prime Minister of Iran is a naive politician? I love how your position smacks of the same disingenious criticisms levied against Obama.

Do we really know Obama? Is he really an American citizen? Is he just a naive young politician? Could he be the anti-Christ? Is he a secret Muslim? Is he a radical black? Is Obama a Marxist?

By your twisted logic, the incumbant should always win because they are more experienced at the job than the challenger and you know precisely where their failures lie. Perhaps you loved GW. Bush's 2nd term? Maybe this is why you're advocating for a man with similar predilictions in Iran to win another term?

You make me laugh man... I supported Obama instead of Cheney and loathed Bush... Unlike Ahmedinenajad, Obama and Bush have actual power to do things that can change the world and make the our own country a better place to live.

You guys just like to pick arguments with me for no odd reason...

 

[Atrus]

You make me laugh man... I supported Obama instead of Cheney and loathed Bush... Unlike Ahmedinenajad, Obama and Bush have actual power to do things that can change the world and make the our own country a better place to live.

You guys just like to pick arguments with me for no odd reason...

Because your points are weak and have no substance. You focus on serving particular ends, and will say and support anything so long as that end is achieved, like your utter asshat support of peace with the Taliban, which didn't turn out so well for the Pakistani government or the Pakistani's that ended up headless in regions where the Taliban took over.

For someone who a few posts back was attempting to support how awesome Athenian styled Democracy is, you have a particularly cowardly outlook when it comes to challenge a dictatorship. Don't bother, you will fail, never try.

 

[Zapages]

Because your points are weak and have no substance. You focus on serving particular ends, and will say and support anything so long as that end is achieved, like your utter asshat support of peace with the Taliban, which didn't turn out so well for the Pakistani government or the Pakistani's that ended up headless in regions where the Taliban took over.

For someone who a few posts back was attempting to support how awesome Athenian styled Democracy is, you have a particularly cowardly outlook when it comes to challenge a dictatorship. Don't bother, you will fail, never try.

Actually what the government did was quiet ingenious as the now for the first time ever Pakistani people in general turning against the Taliban... Especially after what happened today, there was a suicide bomb that killed one of the greatest mullas in the city of Lahore, a person of reason.

If you want to say dictators then look your way over to our allies: Saudi Family, Jordanian family, Egypt, and Libya...

If you think Mouasavi is going to change how the quasi-democracy is going to work in Iran then you'll going to be really disappointed... Nothing is going to change.

 

[Atrus]

Actually what the government do was quiet ingenious as the now for the first time ever Pakistani people in general turning against the Taliban...

If you want to say dictators then look your way over to our allies: Saudi Family, Jordanian family, Egypt, and Libya...

If you think Mouasavi is going to change how the quasi-democracy is going to work in Iran then you'll going to be really disappointed... Nothing is going to change.

Your first point doesn't address the fact that you genuinely and idiotically supported peace with the Taliban. Not as a basis of political gamesmanship on the part of the Pakistani government, but because the Taliban are not the theocratic genocidal diseases they've shown themselves to be.

Your second point also avoids the issue. What does Saudi Arabia have to do with the Iranian elections being discussed? Nobody believes that Mousavi will do much in the way of human rights or even modernization in Iran, but even n-x is better than n, regardless of how small a figure x is.

Like I said before, your posts don't actually have substance. It's empty rhetoric which the Americans have seen quite recently.

'McCain, Obama no matter who you elect everything will just be the same.'

The margin between the two leading candidates in Iran may have been sliver thin, but at least the people who support reform are exhibiting more courage and intelligence than your points exhibit.

 

[Zapages]

Your first point doesn't address the fact that you genuinely and idiotically supported peace with the Taliban. Not as a basis of political gamesmanship on the part of the Pakistani government, but because the Taliban are not the theocratic genocidal diseases they've shown themselves to be.

Your second point also avoids the issue. What does Saudi Arabia have to do with the Iranian elections being discussed? Nobody believes that Mousavi will do much in the way of human rights or even modernization in Iran, but even n-x is better than n, regardless of how small a figure x is.

Like I said before, your posts don't actually have substance. It's empty rhetoric which the Americans have seen quite recently.

'McCain, Obama no matter who you elect everything will just be the same.'

The margin between the two leading candidates in Iran may have been sliver thin, but at least the people who support reform are exhibiting more courage and intelligence than your points exhibit.

Actually what does Pakistan and its war with the Taliban that you brought up deal with the Iranian election. You were the one who brought the subject up...

Same with the dictatorships and Saudi Family is a dictatorship in the form of a monarchy...

What rhetoric? You just want to pick fight for no apparent reason. Let Democracy stand and deal with it as sometimes leaders come that are not what you like and sometimes there are that you like....

 

[C- Warrior]

Long live Mahmoud Ahmadinejad!!

Long live Iran!

 

[C- Warrior]

I thought the majority of Iranians were 30 and younger? I'd figure that would push the reformers by a wide margin. Or maybe I was dreaming it up. :lol

No, it's about 30 to 35% which constitute the 21-23 and younger crowd.

EDIT: Not sure about the statistic for 30 and younger - but the routers link below seems relatively accurate.

 

[slidewinder]

"More than two-thirds" of the population is under the age of 30.

 

[Atrus]

Actually what does Pakistan and its war with the Taliban that you brought up deal with the Iranian election. You were the one who brought the subject up...

Same with the dictatorships and Saudi Family is a dictatorship in the form of a monarchy...

What rhetoric? You just want to pick fight for no apparent reason. Let Democracy stand and deal with it as sometimes leaders come that are not what you like and sometimes there are that you like....

The point was brought up to point out that your arguments have a history of being empty, and mindlessly driven to support alterior goals regardless of the cost or gravity of what you support.

I'm not picking a fight, I'm pointing out how your appeal for 'Democracy' is bullshit. When it comes to Mousavi winning, it just doesn't matter because Iran isn't a real democracy but when it comes to Ahmadinejad winning, it's 'Democracy' and you've used the same utterly bankrupt points brought up by equally insipid people during the US elections.

I'm just here to beat back any notion that your opinions are based in the best interest of Iranians or humans in general. If there was some even more religious twit in Iran who decided in even more restrictive interpretations of Islam and mind-bendingly backward human rights abuses, you would be there backing them up to a point and then blaming a conspiracy of Western and Pro-Western governments for the the rest.

 

[Zapages]

The point was brought up to point out that your arguments have a history of being empty, and mindlessly driven to support alterior goals regardless of the cost or gravity of what you support.

I'm not picking a fight, I'm pointing out how your appeal for 'Democracy' is bullshit. When it comes to Mousavi winning, it just doesn't matter because Iran isn't a real democracy but when it comes to Ahmadinejad winning, it's 'Democracy' and you've used the same utterly bankrupt points brought up by equally insipid people during the US elections.

I'm just here to beat back any notion that your opinions are based in the best interest of Iranians or humans in general. If there was some even more religious twit in Iran who decided in even more restrictive interpretations of Islam and mind-bendingly backward human rights abuses, you would be there backing them up to a point and then blaming a conspiracy of Western and Pro-Western governments for the the rest.

What are you talking about man? :lol What other goals are you talking about?

If Mousavi had won or will win... Its all good for me as well. As I said in the beginning it really doesn't matter who wins as the Ayatollah is the one who has the real power.

Where's argument about dictatorships? huh? You backed off with those states that I listed, which are our allies.

Huh restrictive Islam and the whole last paragraph? WTF are you talking about man? :lol I mean seriously I never supported what you are inferring to. If you mean Caliphate = restrictive Islam, then you got something really wrong there.

 

[Atrus]

What are you talking about man? :lol What other goals are you talking about?

If Mousavi had wone or will win... Its all good for me as well. As I said in the beginning it really doesn't matter who wins as the Ayatollah is the one who has the real power.

Where's argument about dictatorships? huh? You backed off with those states that I listed, which are our allies.

Huh restrictive Islam and the whole last paragraph? WTF are you talking about man? :lol I mean seriously I never supported what you are inferring to. If you mean Caliphate = restrictive Islam, then you got something really wrong there.

Your overarching advocation of a Caliphate and Sharia with blind zealotry. The same sort of zealotry that led you to backslap some of the good changes the Taliban were bringing about, and that when abuses are so flagrant they are even beyond your sensibilities, they were caused in some fashion by Western or Pro-Western nations that seek to undermine your pitiful Caliphate dreams.

This is why your position in this election is on the side of the frontrunner which least favors discourse with the West, using utterly bullshit excuses. I didn't 'back off' of anything, they were utterly unrelated to the discussion at hand. My usage of Pakistan and the Taliban was to readdress the fact that you don't advocate for the people themselves, just how they feed into your illusory dreams.

If I were advocating that Saudi Arabia wasn't a theocratic shithole of human rights violations and violent dogma I could see the point in bringing it up, or if a dictatorship in said countries impacted in any way advocating against the theocratic one in Iran through indirect support of reform candidates.

You simply used it as a distraction the same way the current Iranian government charges Canada with human rights violations everytime we address the issue of persecuting women, murdering homosexuals, imprisoning journalists or torturing and killing Canadians.

 

[Chrono]

The neocons are going to love another 4 years of Ahmadinejad.

This I think is the second reason why some leftists are cheering for Mousavi, the first being an Obama WH as opposed to a republican one.

 

[Zapages]

Your overarching advocation of a Caliphate and Sharia with blind zealotry. The same sort of zealotry that led you to backslap some of the good changes the Taliban were bringing about, and that when abuses are so flagrant they are even beyond your sensibilities, they were caused in some fashion by Western or Pro-Western nations that seek to undermine your pitiful Caliphate dreams.

This is why your position in this election is on the side of the frontrunner which least favors discourse with the West, using utterly bullshit excuses. I didn't 'back off' of anything, they were utterly unrelated to the discussion at hand. My usage of Pakistan and the Taliban was to readdress the fact that you don't advocate for the people themselves, just how they feed into your illusory dreams.

If I were advocating that Saudi Arabia wasn't a theocratic shithole of human rights violations and violent dogma I could see the point in bringing it up, or if a dictatorship in said countries impacted in any way advocating against the theocratic one in Iran through indirect support of reform candidates.

You simply used it as a distraction the same way the current Iranian government charges Canada with human rights violations everytime we address the issue of persecuting women, murdering homosexuals, imprisoning journalists or torturing and killing Canadians.

So in your opinion anyone supports re-establishment of a Caliphate or Caliph is an extremist. real sensible thinking there...*rolls eyes*

Taliban does not equal Caliphate, and actually they are opposite of it... Their rhetoric stems from the establishment of Saudi funded muddrassas in that region and that was due to US bailed on Pakistan and Afghanistan after end of the Soviets Defeat and Saudi Arabia decided to help that area out... Plus Taliban is just vague word in the sense it is enemy that doesn't support us or causes havoc in a peaceful country... The people that have been captured in Pakistan under the name of the Taliban are Uzbeks, Tajiks, and mostly from Afghani origin in Pakistan who doing these heinous attacks on civilians. Also an important note, I never did support the Taliban. >: I take offense you thought so!

What illusionary dream!!!? If you mean the Caliphate or Caliph, well yes its a responsibility of Muslim to have one, but the means to do so and the state of the Muslim world right now with the dictators and puppet regimes are not too favorable for it right now. Anyway I stated facts about things in Iran! You backed off on to why we support monarchical dictatorship in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and now Libya just because they are on our side of things!!! Yet we go against Iran just because what Obama stated for our own reasons that we took out their democratically elected people and then the revolution there. Regardless their wounds that need to be healed, we need Iran to play role both in Iraq and in Afghanistan as it is Shia majority country that has borders with both countries.

You know what, let other countries do what they please within their own borders... We are not the police of the world nor we should be because our economy needs to get better before we do any more vast wars aka Bush Doctorine with any nation out there as we really can't even control Iraq and Afghanistan... :|

PS: I'm off to bed...

 

[GSG Flash]

Looks like we're stuck with Ahmedinejad for another 4 years

I agree that he's just a figurehead, but he's a figurehead who says dumbass things and unfortunately those dumb things he says are taken by people, who make Ahmedinejad out to be more than a figurehead for some reason, and cause a lot of hatred in this world.

Oh well, despite who wins the elections I know one thing for sure from seeing all the campaigning and election pics and vids, and that one thing is that Iranian women are hot

 

[A Black Falcon]

Looks like we're stuck with Ahmedinejad for another 4 years

I agree that he's just a figurehead, but he's a figurehead who says dumbass things and unfortunately those dumb things he says are taken by people, who make Ahmedinejad out to be more than a figurehead for some reason, and cause a lot of hatred in this world.

Oh well, despite who wins the elections I know one thing for sure from seeing all the campaigning and election pics and vids, and that one thing is that Iranian women are hot

Just like last time, another "victory" for Ahmedinejad over a reform candidate opponent who had a huge lead in the polls? Yeah, that's likely... in a rigged system, that is...

 

[GSG Flash]

Just like last time, another "victory" for Ahmedinejad over a reform candidate opponent who had a huge lead in the polls? Yeah, that's likely... in a rigged system, that is...

Except Mousavi never had a "huge lead" in the polls. Yes Mousavi led Ahmedinejad in polls in urban areas, but in the rural areas, which make up a huge part of Iran both geographically and population wise, it wasn't even a question that Ahmedinejad was gonna take all the votes there.

 

[Atrus]

So in your opinion anyone supports re-establishment of a Caliphate or Caliph is an extremist. real sensible thinking there...*rolls eyes*

Taliban does not equal Caliphate, and actually they are opposite of it... Their rhetoric stems from the establishment of Saudi funded muddrassas in that region and that was due to US bailed on Pakistan and Afghanistan after end of the Soviets Defeat and Saudi Arabia decided to help that area out... Plus Taliban is just vague word in the sense it is enemy that doesn't support us or causes havoc in a peaceful country... The people that have been captured in Pakistan under the name of the Taliban are Uzbeks, Tajiks, and mostly from Afghani origin in Pakistan who doing these heinous attacks on civilians. Also an important note, I never did support the Taliban. >: I take offense you thought so!

What illusionary dream!!!? If you mean the Caliphate or Caliph, well yes its a responsibility of Muslim to have one, but the means to do so and the state of the Muslim world right now with the dictators and puppet regimes are not too favorable for it right now. Anyway I stated facts about things in Iran! You backed off on to why we support monarchical dictatorship in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and now Libya just because they are on our side of things!!! Yet we go against Iran just because what Obama stated for our own reasons that we took out their democratically elected people and then the revolution there. Regardless their wounds that need to be healed, we need Iran to play role both in Iraq and in Afghanistan as it is Shia majority country that has borders with both countries.

You know what, let other countries do what they please within their own borders... We are not the police of the world nor we should be because our economy needs to get better before we do any more vast wars aka Bush Doctorine with any nation out there as we really can't even control Iraq and Afghanistan... :|

PS: I'm off to bed...

The point is that you support the Caliphate and the expansion of Sharia law to such an extent that you enable anything so long as it is in line with the position.

It is why we get threads such as this:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=358963&

or your repeated downplaying of the Pakistani initiative against the Taliban as
"Also the Pakistani Government and Military should stop killing her own people and labeling anyone who opposes them as taliban.

Most of all the leaders aka Musharaf and Zadari, the most corrupt people known should be removed and put on trial... As they are not looking for their nations future instead they are looking for their own. Which is sickening....

Pakistan's Military and Bhutto Family lost East Pakistan and they will not lose the nation where millions died to make. Truly a sad state of affairs."

or

"ding ding we have a winner here.

That's what the Pakistani Government and the Military are doing... Just getting the money to spend on their estates and mansions... So sad..."

in response to "And they want to keep Taliban around so they can use them against India in the future. And US keeps paying them large sums of money as long as they pretend to be fighting against Taliban."

Furthermore, I am not American nor was my point based on tolerating dictatorships allied to the West and vilifying those that do not. Unlike yourself, I find it beneficial to the Iranians to not have a government steeped in religion or a society embracing Sharia. You find it otherwise, and embrace whatever load of bullshit that is peddles it the best so long as you get you're grand Caliphate. Bully to all the headless corpses and stretched necks along the way I guess.

 

[Chrono]

 

[Trurl]

Hijabs can be really hot.

 

[Justin Timberlake]

No election is flawless but most modern ones, conducted in civilized countries that don't hang teenage girls and stone women to death, are FREE AND FAIR.

And he did not do ANYTHING right. The ignorant animals voting for him don't have any capability of thought, let alone rational thought. He brought the country's economy to the fucking ground WHILE OIL PRICES WERE RECORD HIGH. He hired people for their fucking 'piety' instead of competence. All he did 'right' was go out to the country side and literally give out money, and raise salaries and such. One guy put it perfectly - the salary increase he got was wiped out by the inflation he caused. The inbreds voting for him however can't think even that much. He's as ugly and dumb and dirty as they are, so he's one of them, a believer, a true believer fearful of god. That's it. They don't want the country to liberalize even an inch. They'll be able to practice their religion just as much - but heaven's forbid others can choose differently. They're muslims - they believe Allah has a set of rules for a society to live by and they're living by them. They're fascists. It's as simple as that. A bunch of rotten, dumb, ignorant fascists who don't care about having a boot down their necks telling them what to do, arresting them, suffocating them - they worship that boot.

They only people supporting them are the ones even more rotten - the arab 'street' bursting with love for a tyrant and holocaust denier 'standing up' to the west by acting like a clown, the 'moderate' muslims who can't decide which they like more - a mass murderer like bin laden or scum like ahmedinejad, and of course the top spot goes to - as it always does - to the enlightened western progressive/leftist/liberal community (though now that it's Obama in office some have changed their tune). obama

And right around here is where I leave the thread.

Neogaf can be worse than youtube comments sometimes.

 

[~Devil Trigger~]

Hijabs can be really hot.

literally?

 

[Chrono]

Hijabs can be really hot.

This post reminded me of a youtube video of something like 'beautiful hijab' or 'hijab is beautiful' or who knows what, I tried to search for it now and couldn't make it past a few vids before thoughts of suicide crossed surfaced. I remember that video because most or all pictures were of Iranian women in lax hijab - pulled back to show hair. Those are the Iranian women who don't want to wear a hijab. And some dumbass decided to make a video of them to praise muslim women. Seriously. You'd think he'd stop when he registers what he's looking at - I don't think anybody who hasn't seen Iranian women in those hijabs would even consider those women in that video as muslim ones wearing hijab, they were like the one I posted above.

Anyway if anybody here looks for it and finds it, please post the link.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Two options here

1) Elections were rigged
2) Once again, the youth vote have proven themselves to be unreliable.

It's not that Ahmedinejad won, it's that 69% is a ridiculously high number.

 

[Chrono]

Two options here

1) Elections were rigged
2) Once again, the youth vote have proven themselves to be unreliable.

It's not that Ahmedinejad won, it's that 69% is a ridiculously high number.

Both options are very real possibilities. I read an article where a reformist, a cleric even - the former vice president (under Khatami), said it all depends on whether the youth care enough to vote and aren't busy swapping phone numbers.

And rigging is a given, the question is how much. When Khatami announced his run for this race what was being said was that if it's a landslide, and considering it's Khatami is was nearly guaranteed, any rigging wouldn't matter in the big picture. There were a lot of complaints of fraud during the election 4 years ago, I wouldn't be surprised if that's how Ahmedinejad got to where he is.

 

[Victarion]

First I want to make it clear that I'm Iranian.

Long live Mahmoud Ahmadinejad!!

Long live Iran!

Sarcasm? That monkey face asshole doesn't have any right to be The President for another 4 years.
Base on the fact that I know it was completely a rigged election... At first numbers for Rezai was 663,048 votes but the second they announced the numbers it became 587,913 votes! How the hell it's possible?
Right now people are protesting in Tehran and police forces are attacking people!!

 

[Tyrone Slothrop]

i guess this will be the Iranian's 2004

lucky for them their presidential elections are only sideshows, more or less

 

[slidewinder]

What's the most up-to-the-minute coverage of this election on the internet, and in English?

Edit: meaning anything reasonably objective and impartial. I.e., not garbage like presstv.

 

[DSWii60]

And he did not do ANYTHING right. The ignorant animals voting for him don't have any capability of thought, let alone rational thought. He brought the country's economy to the fucking ground WHILE OIL PRICES WERE RECORD HIGH. He hired people for their fucking 'piety' instead of competence. All he did 'right' was go out to the country side and literally give out money, and raise salaries and such. One guy put it perfectly - the salary increase he got was wiped out by the inflation he caused. The inbreds voting for him however can't think even that much. He's as ugly and dumb and dirty as they are, so he's one of them, a believer, a true believer fearful of god. That's it. They don't want the country to liberalize even an inch. They'll be able to practice their religion just as much - but heaven's forbid others can choose differently. They're muslims - they believe Allah has a set of rules for a society to live by and they're living by them. They're fascists. It's as simple as that. A bunch of rotten, dumb, ignorant fascists who don't care about having a boot down their necks telling them what to do, arresting them, suffocating them - they worship that boot.

The bolded really offends me. I know plenty of Ahmadinejad supporters, and none deserve the abuse you have given them. They all have their reasons for supporting Ahmadinejad (none of which I agree with by the way) and to call them "ignorant animals" "rotten, dumb, ignorant fascists" "inbred" etc. is taking it way too far and is totally uncalled for.

About the election: I know someone who was at a polling station in the U.K. and is closely affiliated with the Iranian government and he told me after polling closed that Mousavi would win. There is no way Ahmadinejad could have got 64% of the votes, I could've believed a small victory but one this big?!

 

[JimmyV]

!

 

[Judderman]

So they have blocked off areas of central Tehran to prevent the opposition from having a news conference and shut down the text messaging system (A major tool in Mousavi's campaign)...This sounds kinda sketchy =/

 

[slidewinder]

There are hundreds of foreign reporters inside the country with at least reasonable on-the-ground access. Where are the updates? The big US sites are slow as shit.

 

[Cheebs]

How would he win a higher percentage than in 2005 when compared to 2005 where he was first elected the economy is far worse in Iran, he has taken a hit in approval ratings, and had a stronger opponent?

It makes no sense unless the election was rigged. The shutting down of the opposition like this makes it all the more obvious.

 

[APF]

The bolded really offends me. I know plenty of Ahmadinejad supporters, and none deserve the abuse you have given them. They all have their reasons for supporting Ahmadinejad (none of which I agree with by the way) and to call them "ignorant animals" "rotten, dumb, ignorant fascists" "inbred" etc. is taking it way too far and is totally uncalled for.

How did you feel about Bush voters?

 

[JimmyV]

The bolded really offends me. I know plenty of Ahmadinejad supporters, and none deserve the abuse you have given them. They all have their reasons for supporting Ahmadinejad (none of which I agree with by the way) and to call them "ignorant animals" "rotten, dumb, ignorant fascists" "inbred" etc. is taking it way too far and is totally uncalled for.

and what ar their reasons? would you stick up for me is i told you i supported Hitler? No, you wouldnt

Spoiler

i hope

.

 

[NMan]

Saw this on another forum:

 

[DSWii60]

How did you feel about Bush voters?

I didn't agree with them either, but I can see why people voted for him. Again, the reasons they voted for Bush may be based on (what I think are) false beliefs, but no way would I call Bush supporters "fascists" "inbred" or "ignorant animals."

 

[Zapages]

The point is that you support the Caliphate and the expansion of Sharia law to such an extent that you enable anything so long as it is in line with the position.

It is why we get threads such as this:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=358963&

or your repeated downplaying of the Pakistani initiative against the Taliban as
"Also the Pakistani Government and Military should stop killing her own people and labeling anyone who opposes them as taliban.

Most of all the leaders aka Musharaf and Zadari, the most corrupt people known should be removed and put on trial... As they are not looking for their nations future instead they are looking for their own. Which is sickening....

Pakistan's Military and Bhutto Family lost East Pakistan and they will not lose the nation where millions died to make. Truly a sad state of affairs."

or

"ding ding we have a winner here.

That's what the Pakistani Government and the Military are doing... Just getting the money to spend on their estates and mansions... So sad..."

in response to "And they want to keep Taliban around so they can use them against India in the future. And US keeps paying them large sums of money as long as they pretend to be fighting against Taliban."

Furthermore, I am not American nor was my point based on tolerating dictatorships allied to the West and vilifying those that do not. Unlike yourself, I find it beneficial to the Iranians to not have a government steeped in religion or a society embracing Sharia. You find it otherwise, and embrace whatever load of bullshit that is peddles it the best so long as you get you're grand Caliphate. Bully to all the headless corpses and stretched necks along the way I guess.

1st: There are many interruptions of the Shari'a law... Iran has its own, Saudi Arabia has its own, Pakistan takes some notes from the Shari'a in its own laws. So just shut up already as you bringing in Pakistani Politics into a thread does not deal with this thread at all. If you want to discuss this start a new topic, because you're going nowhere this discussion. Did you know during the Ottoman Caliphate, there were laws that worked adjacent to Shari'a law. Aside from the Caliphate, a Caliph is a religious and political leader for Muslims, mostly deals with Sunni Muslims.

In regards to the last paragraph, the Iranians don't care about the Caliphate just let you know because they are Shia Muslims. I have nothing against them because they have their own system the Council and the Ayatolla. So I really don't know what you are getting at with the whole religious leader support to get the Caliphate. The current Arab Leaders' decedents are the ones to be blamed for causing end of the Caliphate and the whole mess that we are in right now. Also when they tried to establish a Caliph again, the Iranians/Persians back in late 1920s/early 1930s did not send their delegate nor did the British India, and few other regions under colonial rule...FYI, I don't like any of the dictators, Saudi Family, Jordanian family, Mubarak in Egypt, and the person in Libya*forgot his name*...

The rest of the paragraphs:
That's all true! So, what? The context of the discussion was under Musharraf rule, Pakistan was selling her "normal people" as they were labeled as "Taliban" to the US for the money. Also regardless of all that Zardari is one corrupt person and all he wants money and the same with the whole Bhutto family. So what are you trying to get at?

The situation is that Pakistani government negotiated with the "Taliban" and got somewhat of a peace deal for some time period... This made the general public in Pakistan really like the government and the army as someone who are able to negotiate the problem with fellow Muslims and not go ahead start killing them right away.

The whole atmosphere got rotten when the "Taliban" broke the accord started to kill the rest of the Pakistani People in the region as in act to bring their version of Shari'a... Then there was Lahore Police station attack when they captured a few of them and they were found to be from Uzbek, Tajik, Afghans descent. Whole this changed Pakistani people's perception of the whole war against the Taliban and made them go against them.

 

[Cheebs]

I wouldn't have anything against his supporters. The poorer rural sections of the population tend to be persuaded by very bad vile people. It's the well let's be blunt here just plain evil people like AMjiadididiidiadad or Hugo Chavez who are to blame.

 

[Ripclawe]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/13/iran-election-ahmadinejad-wins-president

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has won a crushing victory in Iran's landmark presidential election, according to the country's authorities, but his moderate challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi has warned of "tyranny" and protested that the result was rigged after a record turnout of 84%.

As the official results were announced, baton-wielding riot police clashed with angry Mousavi supporters, in some of the most serious unrest Tehran has seen in years.

Probably better if they had rigged it to be a slight win instead of crushing defeat

 

[slidewinder]

INSTANT VIEW: Iran's election result staggers analysts

(Reuters) - Hard-liner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad defeated moderate challenger Mirhossein Mousavi by a surprisingly wide margin in Iran's presidential election, official results showed on Saturday. Mousavi derided the tally as a "dangerous charade."

Here are some analysts' views on the outcome of Friday's vote:

KARIM SADJAPOUR, ANALYST AT CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE:

"I don't think anyone anticipated this level of fraudulence. This was a selection, not an election. At least authoritarian regimes like Syria and Egypt have no democratic pretences. In retrospect it appears this entire campaign was a show: (Supreme Leader) Ayatollah (Ali) Khamenei wasn't ever going to let Ahmadinejad lose."

ALIREZA NADER, RAND CORPORATION:

"Ahmadinejad has of course won the election. What is surprising is his share of the vote -- 64 percent according to some estimates. The opposition in Iran may protest this election as being fraudulent. Mousavi's supporters were hopeful that he had a great chance of winning and that his presidency would lead to much needed reforms. Their enthusiasm may turn into frustration, and perhaps even active opposition against the government. Although the president is not the chief decision-maker, Ahmadinejad's win is a sign that Iranian politics is in stage of flux.

"The power of the traditional ruling elite -- men such as Ayatollah Rafsanjani -- has been effectively challenged by Ahmadinejad and his supporters, including top-ranking and fundamentalist members of the Revolutionary Guards.

"Another Ahmadinejad term may translate into continued social and political repression, economic mismanagement and more assertive foreign policies, especially on the nuclear program. It is not clear how Ahmadinejad's victory will affect U.S.-Iranian engagement. There is still some room for limited engagement on specific issues, such as Afghanistan. But Ahmadinejad's victory, and renewed sense of confidence, may make U.S. engagement with Iran more difficult than many had expected. Regardless, the ultimate decision will be made by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the top echelon of the Revolutionary Guards."

MARK FITZPATRICK, SENIOR FELLOW FOR NON-PROLIFERATION AT INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES IN LONDON:

"I'm surprised at the regime's audacity in declaring such a large margin for Ahmadinejad, given that in the run-up, the momentum seemed to be in the other direction. The hardliners in the regime seem to have exercised all their levers of power to keep Ahmadinejad in place. Undoubtedly, one of the key reasons was their concern about losing control of the country through policies such as willingness to engage with the United States.

"All of the candidates wanted U.S. engagement, including Ahmadinejad and the Supreme Leader, but the Supreme Leader wanted it to be on his timetable and his agenda. So Ahmadinejad's victory does not mean there cannot be engagement. He just wants credit for it. What it does mean is that there will be no change in the management of the nuclear portfolio. Ahmadinejad wants engagement with the United States without making any concessions at all in the nuclear program. So it doesn't augur well for an early and peaceful settlement of the nuclear dispute."

ALI ANSARI, DIRECTOR OF INSTITUTE FOR IRANIAN STUDIES AT UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS IN SCOTLAND:
"The potential for unrest is high. People will wake up today in Iran in a state of shock, not that Ahmadinejad has won, but that he has won on such a dramatic scale ... The scale of the election victory that they have given Ahmadinejad means he must have won big in the cities. That is simply not borne out by what people were saying in the major cities (before the vote)."

ELLIOTT ABRAMS, FORMER SENIOR BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL NOW WITH THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS:

"Both the apparent victory and the apparent fraud greatly complicate the Obama strategy. My advice is that they had better be thinking about more sanctions. The one hope might be that if a new Ahmadinejad government is viewed as illegitimate by many Iranians, that government might be anxious to avoid further economic distress. In that context, sanctions that bite might be a powerful tool and might push the regime into a serious negotiation. But it is more likely that the engagement strategy has been dealt a very heavy blow.

"At this point one has to wonder about vote fraud. The two-to-one margin for Ahmadinejad may well appear to millions of Iranians as bizarre and unlikely, and meant to avoid a run-off he might lose. If that's what millions of voters think, especially young voters in this very young country (70 percent of the population is under age 30), there could well be large demonstrations. And the legitimacy not only of an Ahmadinejad second term, but of the whole regime, would be in question in the eyes of many Iranians."

TRITA PARSI, PRESIDENT OF NATIONAL IRANIAN AMERICAN COUNCIL:

"I'm in disbelief that this could be the case. It's one thing if Ahmadinejad had won the first round with 51 or 55 percent. But this number ... just sounds tremendously strange in a way that doesn't add up ... It is difficult to feel comfortable that this occurred without any cheating.

"If there is a fight in Iran and there are accusations of fraud and Mousavi declares himself a winner and you have numerous leading clerics and other figures recognizing Mousavi, you are going to have paralysis and significant infighting in Iran. That will complicate (U.S. President Barack) Obama's engagement. It will be more difficult to deal with Ahmadinejad because he has been discredited at home. He may not be able to deal with anyone because there is paralysis in Iran. It will cause the Obama administration to lose very precious time. Obama is already trying to win time within Washington and from Washington's allies. There are already pressures from Congress, from pro-Israeli corners, from Israel itself, from some of the Persian Gulf Arab states, for a strict timeline for these efforts. Their patience for how long Obama can pursue this is strictly limited.

"For this year, the Democrats in Congress will give him the benefit of the doubt, but that means he needs to get things started. Already under normal circumstances, you wouldn't have the new president take power until August. He would need to get his cabinet approved by parliament. You are talking already early October before the Iranians are really ready to deal. That's under normal circumstances, which gives Obama very little time. The last thing he needs is indecisiveness in the election result that will cause things to be delayed even further."

SHIBLEY TELHAMI, PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND:

"The most important element in this election is in domestic politics. People may interpret it as a rejection of international pressure, but I don't think that is correct."

(Reporting by Alistair Lyon and Sue Pleming, editing by Andrew Dobbie)​

 

[Cheebs]

It's stuff like this that despite all of our problems I am glad to live in America. The type of insanity about what happened to the election and how they are literally attacking and blocking off the "loser" candidate and his supporters is very scary.

 

[APF]

I didn't agree with them either, but I can see why people voted for him. Again, the reasons they voted for Bush may be based on (what I think are) false beliefs, but no way would I call Bush supporters "fascists" "inbred" or "ignorant animals."

I think you disagree with most of GAF then

 

[esbern]

Saw this on another forum:

this is fucking ridiculous

 

[Cheebs]

I am still in shock about how quickly the govt. shut down all the opposition's ability to contact it's supporters and basically surrounded them by police. Why are they so scared to let the opposition appear AT ALL? It had to be rigged. A govt. doesn't act like this after an election in a free and fair election.

 

[slidewinder]

+

=

+

If only Ike had stuck to his guns the way Truman did. "If only blank blanked the way Truman did." Jesus, it wasn't that hard. Fuck.

 

[Cheebs]

After these obvious election shenanigans (I don't think anyone can deny there was tampering after the way the riot police started attacking the other side and the govt. turned off their power) the only way Iran will be able to get with the rest of the world is to overthrow their Supreme Leader. I don't think anything short of that will allow the opportunity for a free and fair election.

 

[Buba Big Guns]

Wow this is complete bullshit. 69%? Are they actually expecting people to believe that?:lol

Iran could be such a great country without all the hardliners trying to fuck it up.

 

[slidewinder]

Reporting that kind of victory for Ahmadinejad just means that TPTB are looking forward to really busting some heads over the next few days.