Iran

Cyre2067 said:
Apoligies if I was too blunt, full of pride, or condescending. I was attempting to point out what I saw as flaws in kageki's reasoning, as well as detraction, and obvious similiarities to what you were saying and those who have an agenda.

To me, it seems like K is avoiding discussing the parts of the issue that matter, and thus my responses.
I am sorry Cyre but I am confused by this response. Again, sorry if I am being somewhat dense here, but can you please clarify if you are referring to me when you wrote the following, "and obvious similarities to what you were saying and those who have an agenda", and if so, can you please explain what those similarities are? If this is the case, then I am likely off in my observations, to say the least.
 
Hmm, okay, I've come back to this and reread it again, and I am thinking that you were talking to Kageki but still referring to "Kageki", the "false personality", in third person. This seems to make sense. Sorry for the noise.
 
Saman said:
Moreover, in regards to his interview today, I just heard on TV that his interview with Amanpour on CNN was canceled with the exception of him having time to only answer one question.
The interview with Charlie Rose was quite interesting. Because of the close shots you can sometimes study facial expression as well in relation to to the questions he's being asked.

Interview here: _http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7351989860835767572&q=charlie+rose+ahmadinejad&total=7&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
 
Thanks for clarifying that Cyre.

Domivr, I've just started watching the interview - I downloaded the video since it kept getting stuck when I tried to watch it directly on google video. So far, the translator is not translating Ahmanedijad precisely. It's more of a close approximation of what he is saying and I've only watched about 4 minutes of the video. For one example, from the 3:55 frame to 3:57 frame of the video, Ahmadinejad didn't say that "us official refuse to see it" as stated by the translator. It would had been more precise to say that he said "the US official don't understand". Another example, Rose asks him "Mr president, can you tell me that you are not sending weapons to Iraq, very simple, very directly?" Ahmadinejad started to answer, and this is my own translation of what he is saying "we don't have the need to for that, we are opposed to war and" , and here after 'and" I don't understand the rest of what he said before being cut off by Rose with "Is that no sir?" due to the translator overlapping his voice. It sounded like 'war and chaos/disorder/insecurity", but I am not certain. Then Admadinejad say "baleh" which means "yes", but the translator doesn't decode that he said "yes". After saying "yes", he goes on to say that "this disorder/insecurity is detrimental to us, because we have a border of over a 1000 km with Iraq" but the translator say that "this insecurity detrimental to our interests". Much different isn't it. Anyways, it's late and I will watch the rest tomorrow. Thank you for the link to the video.
 
Another thing I just thought of is how convinient it is for Admadinejad to not speak english, I could understand growing up in Iran and never learning it, but upon becoming president I think it would be one of things I would strive for simply so I could be understood on the world stage and so no one could mis-translate me. I mean, he must obviously know that they've been trumping that "Wipe Israel off the Map" bit as if its some sort of high card.

But then again, maybe that's exactly what their going for.
 
Cyre2067 said:
Another thing I just thought of is how convinient it is for Admadinejad to not speak english, I could understand growing up in Iran and never learning it, but upon becoming president I think it would be one of things I would strive for simply so I could be understood on the world stage and so no one could mis-translate me. I mean, he must obviously know that they've been trumping that "Wipe Israel off the Map" bit as if its some sort of high card.

But then again, maybe that's exactly what their going for.
Well, I think it is understandable how difficult it is for an individual to learn a new language when they are already well into their adulthood. Take my parents for example, they can study English for the rest of their lives, but they will likely never be able to speak it with the ease that I do since I was living in Canada since I was about seven. The same goes for me, I will likely never speak and write Farsi with the ease that my parents do, since they were living in Iran for most of their life beginning from childhood, although, I being younger then my parents, think that it will be easier for me progress in becoming intellectually more competent in Farsi if I wish to continue learning and studying the language. The same with Admadinejad, he can start to learn English now or he may have already started in the past, but his English proficiency won't likely reach an adequate level to enable him to clearly understand the subtlety of the questions that are posed to him on an intellectual level. There are of course I think some exceptional individuals that may have the aptitude to learn a new languages even well into their senior years. People who are, so to speak, "innate" linguists due to the environmental factors of their upbringing not psychologically "short circuiting" their intellectual potential of being able to progress into natural linguists with ease.

But regardless, I think you are correct that he should be aware that they have been trumping the "wipe the Israel off the map" misquote so much. I mean come on, even if he doesn't speak any English at all, someone should had told him by now. If only he would just make a simple and direct clarification to this! He had the chance to do this in this interview with Charlie Rose but he didn't choose - or wasn't aware of what was exactly said - to take it upon himself to stop Rose right their and then and to make the much needed clarification. I mean it's either that they are purposely not translating the question to him correctly and he is unconscious of this clever twist of words, or perhaps he is conscious of it and it's just part of his role to play the "useful idiot". I currently think it's the former and not the latter. So instead, he stated that it is the right of the Palestinian people to peacefully decide through their own Free Will, and not anyone else's, to decide what to do about the Zionist regime, and yes, he used the words "Zionist regime" and not the "state of Israel". He has never said to wipe the state or nation of Israel off the map. He does say many things that ring true and are in fact quite probably TRUE in regards to the the deceptions and crimes of the PTB's fronts in the US and Israel. And yet, he doesn't directly clarify this misquote that the media has been told to ceaselessly spew. And has we all know, he goes on to make contradicting comments about women rights and homosexuals in Iran the very same day after having this interview. Moreover, in this interview, he states that people in Iran have freedom to choose and respect what religion they wish to follow and this is why there are Muslims, Christians, and Jews in Iran -- yes, all the three big monotheistic religions thanks to the PTB. Well, if this is true, then for example, why is it mandatory for every women to wear a veil even if they don't want to? A women can say that it is against their religion to wear a veil and they should respect that. So on one hand he says that it is the ideology of the revolution to respect all religions and beliefs of the people, and yet on the other hand there isn't even some very simple freedoms in Iran that we take for granted here. He doesn't even acknowledge the existence of homosexuals in Iran according to that second interview that I couldn't find on the web, and by this twisted logic, he may be thinking that people who don't exist don't have rights. If he is so big on respecting the Free Will of the people and whatnot, these contradictions don't make sense at all, and he should know better before publicly stating such things about the revolution's ideology when it is a rigid religious ideology or belief system with some little 'good' and a lot of 'bad' in terms of respecting the law of Free Will. After much suffering, the people had enough and together stood up against the "old boss" that the PTB's fronts in US, Britain, and Israel had put into place, but "new boss", which was supposed to be representing and protecting the will and livelihood of the people, is pretty much the same as the "old boss" except it is disguised as being more "democratic". Yeah, just like how "democratic" the US elections are with their bi-party political charade. If it's not a transparent dictatorship, it is a dictatorship disguised as a "democracy" until laws are passed to allow the dictators to gradually and officially reveal themselves out into the open. Admadinejad should read the book Political Ponerology to see what he is really up against when trying to reason with the fronts of the PTB, and come out of his religious lala land about the ideology of the revolution, just like people in the US should come out of their lala land about the history of their own constitution. I mean it is very fruitless when Ahmadinjad is trying to have a religious bond based on mutual respect and sincerity with George Bush and others like him! You can't reason and empathize with psychopaths.

Moreover, I was thinking why he doesn't just get a trusted translator with him at these types of interviews, someone he considers very credible and trustworthy, rather then having an English to Farsi translation provided to him with the headphones, but then again, maybe he already does have one, and it is he or she who is actually speaking through the headphones to him, meaning, it is all part of the show, and as you say, what "they" are going for by using him.
 
Saman said:
Ahmadinejad started to answer, and this is my own translation of what he is saying "we don't have the need to for that, we are opposed to war and" , and here after 'and" I don't understand the rest of what he said before being cut off by Rose with "Is that no sir?" due to the translator overlapping his voice. It sounded like 'war and chaos/disorder/insecurity", but I am not certain. Then Admadinejad say "baleh" which means "yes", but the translator doesn't decode that he said "yes". After saying "yes", he goes on to say that "this disorder/insecurity is detrimental to us, because we have a border of over a 1000 km with Iraq" but the translator say that "this insecurity detrimental to our interests". Much different isn't it.
Saman: Thank you for taking the time to translate and yes it makes a huge difference.

Cyre: Regarding the not speaking english, it is also an issue of pride and wanting the other party to show respect. I have seen this often with people of countries with strong cultures (French being a prime example).
It is quite possible that Ahmadinejad can grasp the subtleties of the questions, but does not possess the speaking skills to answer equally subtle.
 
an article by freelance Iranian journalist which practically says that Ahmadinedjad plays a role of useful religious fundamentalist leader, 'the other side' of the Armaggedon fatal embrace
 
kageki said:
On that point, I very much welcomed Saman's reasoned response, but what you, Cyre, have shown nothing but being full of pride and being condescending. One of the reasons I joined this forum recently because I see that on average there is a lot of intelligent responses here and I have also enjoyed reading Laura's material. If you can't handle minor disagreements and discussions why make this forum public? Why not make it invite only and private? Again I only joined recently and still testing the waters and you sure make it hostile for any newcomers.
Cyre said:
Apoligies if I was too blunt, full of pride, or condescending. I was attempting to point out what I saw as flaws in kageki's reasoning, as well as detraction, and obvious similiarities to what you were saying and those who have an agenda.

To me, it seems like K is avoiding discussing the parts of the issue that matter, and thus my responses.
Coming a little late to this discussion but wanted to comment on the above.

Kageki is correct here Cyre. There were no "flaws in kageki's reasoning", or "detraction or obvious similarities to what to those who have an agenda". It is pretty obvious that your perception was clouded by something in what Kageki was saying which led you to take a defensive/offensive tack.

Cyre, please make a greater effort to control yourself and show a little consideration for newcomers.

Joe
 
Canada severs diplomatic ties with Iran, citing safety concerns-

Is this because war is near? Really. I am so deceived by Canada that my words can not express my disgusting. This is for me incredible. Apart from the article you can see some interviews about this subject.





Canada abruptly closed its embassy in Iran and expelled Iranian diplomats in Ottawa Friday, citing safety concerns in Tehran and the long-standing view that Iran is a significant threat to global peace.
"The Iranian regime has shown blatant disregard for the Vienna Convention and its guarantee of protection for diplomatic personnel," Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird said Friday, formally listing Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism.
"Under the circumstances, Canada can no longer maintain a diplomatic presence in Iran,” he said in a statement. “Our diplomats serve Canada as civilians and their safety is our No. 1 priority."
A senior official told CTV News there was a credible threat to Canadian diplomats in Iran.
Baird said the Iranian regime’s support of Syrian president Bashar Assad, Iran’s refusal to comply with the UN’s resolutions on its nuclear program and its regular threats to Israel make it “among the world’s worst violators of human rights.”
“This was a decision that we took very seriously,” Baird told CTV’s Power Play Friday afternoon in a telephone interview from Russia, where he is attending the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum with Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Baird denied that the move was a preemptive response to a planned Israeli attack on Iran, as some observers have speculated.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly hinted that he is prepared to authorize an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities if international sanctions and diplomatic measures don’t do the trick.
“We’ve received no notice from any other country…that there is any imminent military action,” Baird said, adding: “Unequivocally no.”
He said Ottawa waited to formally sever ties with Iran until all Canadian diplomats and embassy staff safely left the country. The last members of the group left Iran yesterday, he said.
Iranian diplomats in Ottawa have been instructed to leave within five days.
A note written in Persian and posted on the door of the Iranian embassy in Ottawa read: "Because of the hostile decision by the government of Canada, the embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Ottawa is closed and has no choice but to stop providing any consular services for its dear citizens.”
On Friday, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada issued an advisory against all travel to Iran.
“Because of heightened regional tensions, Canadians travellers in Iran will be closely watched by Iranian authorities,” reads a statement on the department’s website. “Iranian irritation at the recent Embassy closure may heighten this scrutiny of Canadians.”
Canadians were warned that using cameras in public places in Iran, travelling beyond well-established tourist areas, and casual interactions with Iranians could lead to an investigation and harassment.
“Canadian travellers may be arbitrarily questioned, arrested and detained for a long period,” the statement reads.
Those seeking services of the Canadian consulate in Iran are being directed to the embassy in Turkey.
Baird’s announcement ‘a bold stroke’
Although Canada's relations with Iran have been strained at times since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, many political observers are questioning Ottawa’s sudden decision to sever diplomatic ties with the country.
“I really can’t see the rationale of this move,” former Canadian ambassador to Iran, Kenneth Taylor, told CTV News Channel Friday.
“It’s a very bold stroke to sever diplomatic relations and close the embassy within five days.”
If, as Baird argues, Iran poses such a big threat, it’s more important to have Canadian officials on the ground who can “size up the situation and report from the spot,” Taylor said.
He added that Iran will either “play this up big or shrug it off.”
According to Iran’s semi-official Fars news agency, a spokesperson for Iran's foreign ministry, Ramin Mehmanparast, called Canada's decision "hasty and extreme" and said that Iran would soon respond.
The NDP called Baird’s decision irresponsible.
"What this is showing the world is that when it comes to engagement and trying to work on these difficult problems that require robust diplomacy, we're just walking away," the party’s foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar said.
"I don't see how this is going to help. It might be good rhetoric but it's not good diplomacy."
Miriam Ziv, Isreal’s ambassador to Canada, told Power Play that Baird’s announcement was “a very welcome move,” since Iran has not responded to condemnations from the international community over its nuclear program and human rights violations.
Asked about a potential military strike against Iran, Ziv said that “all options are on the table,” reiterating the Israeli government’s previous responses to the question.
At this point, Israel is still focused on exerting pressure on Iran by way of international sanctions, which must get tougher, Ziv said.
A history of diplomatic tensions
The Canadian embassy in Iran was also closed in the 1980s for eight years after Canadians spirited American diplomats out of Tehran during the post-revolution hostage crisis.
The two countries eventually returned to normal diplomatic relations with an exchange of ambassadors in 1996.
The relationship chilled again in 2003 after a freelance photographer with dual Canadian-Iranian citizenship was killed while in custody in Iran.
Canada described the death as a state-sanctioned murder and recalled its ambassador.
During a meeting with Russia’s foreign affairs minister on Friday, Baird said he delivered Canada’s condemnation of Iran “in no uncertain terms.”
He also asked Russia to reconsider its support of the Assad regime.
Russia has blocked UN Security Council resolutions that would have sanctioned the Assad regime, which has been trying to put down an 18-month uprising.
With a report from CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife and files from The Canadian Press


Read more: Canada severs diplomatic ties with Iran, citing safety concerns
 
Last edited by a moderator:
loreta said:
Is this because war is near? Really. I am so deceived by Canada that my words can not express my disgusting. This is for me incredible. Apart from the article you can see some interviews about this subject.

This was the headline that I woke up with :mad: - it is disgusting of Canada, yet not surprising as it has been building, predictable even based on some of the dots. Also, like good followers, they were likely told by their pathological friends.
 
loreta said:
Is this because war is near?

Sure does seem like it. It definitely seems like Canada is making a stand. And reading this made me want to throw up.. :barf:

http://www.rferl.org/content/israeli-president-thanks-canada-for-suspending-ties-with-iran/24702477.html

Israeli President Shimon Peres has thanked Canada for suspending diplomatic relations with Iran.

In a statement, Peres said, "Canada has proven once again that morals come before pragmatism."

Canada said on September 7 it had closed its embassy in Iran and is expelling all Iranian diplomats from Canada.

Foreign Minister John Baird said in a statement that the Iranian government was "the most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today."

Tehran said Canada had sacrificed its national interests for the sake of Israel and vowed an "adequate reply."

I guess as things are moving forward, certain political moves have to be made on the 'surface' so as to create even more distraction for the masses. This is a worrisome move for me... it sure does seem like the sound of 'war drums' are getting louder and louder.

I'm very concerned for my family. I know some of them are trying to leave Iran, and were trying to come to Canada. This will make things much more difficult for them. I've been telling them that for years... telling them to try and get out asap... sadly it seems like it's now too late. :cry:
 
Deedlet said:
loreta said:
Is this because war is near?

Sure does seem like it. It definitely seems like Canada is making a stand. And reading this made me want to throw up.. :barf:

http://www.rferl.org/content/israeli-president-thanks-canada-for-suspending-ties-with-iran/24702477.html

Israeli President Shimon Peres has thanked Canada for suspending diplomatic relations with Iran.

In a statement, Peres said, "Canada has proven once again that morals come before pragmatism."

Canada said on September 7 it had closed its embassy in Iran and is expelling all Iranian diplomats from Canada.

Foreign Minister John Baird said in a statement that the Iranian government was "the most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today."

Tehran said Canada had sacrificed its national interests for the sake of Israel and vowed an "adequate reply."

I guess as things are moving forward, certain political moves have to be made on the 'surface' so as to create even more distraction for the masses. This is a worrisome move for me... it sure does seem like the sound of 'war drums' are getting louder and louder.

I'm very concerned for my family. I know some of them are trying to leave Iran, and were trying to come to Canada. This will make things much more difficult for them. I've been telling them that for years... telling them to try and get out asap... sadly it seems like it's now too late. :cry:

I am very sorry for your family... :( How bad are politicians in this world that make everything to make suffering for everyone! They are a species that should not be here. :mad:

Israel's lobby is very strong in Canada as in USA. In that sense no difference at all. I don't want war! And I love Iranians, I love everyone in this planet, I respect every culture, religion, country. But politicians, that work for the devil, think differently. Me too, if you permit, I will vomit with you. :barf:
 
[quote author=Deedlet ]
I'm very concerned for my family. I know some of them are trying to leave Iran, and were trying to come to Canada. This will make things much more difficult for them. I've been telling them that for years... telling them to try and get out asap... sadly it seems like it's now too late. :cry:
[/quote]

I'm very sorry too. The global western stereotyping is running to extremes and in Canada, living under this political, exponentially increasingly fascist roof, makes one feel ill as the MSM keep falling into line supporting the new statuesque.

Yesterday was trying to unpack the significance of the Defense Minister, Peter McKay's new wife, Nazanin Afshin-Jam and what she was discussing; her influence. It says her father was imprisoned and tortured in Iran. It says she is a human rights activist and in favor of these actions and would be curious of her Palestinian stance amongst other motivations. This union seems a strange coincidence in timing and to who; could be overreaching however.

_http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/09/07/pol-baird-canada-iran-embassy.html

Nevertheless, with every MSM story, behind it all lurks the sickening image of Netanyahu, and all he represents of the power they presume to wield. If the world objectively look at this, he and his calculating like would be seen as nothing more then the entropic pariah they are.
 
Back
Top Bottom