Obama administration's appeasement to Iranian Islamists

[American_Jihad]

So Obama removed some non-economic sanctions, wtf...

Emboldening and Empowering Islamic Fundamentalists

October 25, 2013 By Majid Rafizadeh

In the last few months, the Obama administration has removed some non-economic sanctions on Iran, has stopped its efforts to push for more pressure on Iran’s nuclear defiance and clandestine uranium enrichments, has described the Islamist government of Iran (which holds the top rank on the list of nations with the highest human rights abuses and the support of terrorism) as a rational actor, and has characterized the recent nuclear talks with the Islamist government and fundamentalist theocratic regime of Iran as “positive” and “constructive.”

However, beyond all these political and diplomatic benefits given to the Islamic Republic of Iran and its Ayatollahs, Western countries including France and the United States indicated this week that they are considering including Iran in the next Geneva II conference on the Syrian civil war and violence. The Western nations pointed out that Iran could be included in a Geneva II conference to negotiate an end to Syria’s bloody conflict.

Besides the permission given to the Islamists in Iran to continue uranium enrichment, which can soon turn into a nuclear breakthrough capacity according to nuclear experts, the West is basically sending a signal to the Islamists in Iran that they are legitimizing the Iranian government’s support of Assad’s Alawite and police state, Hezbollah’s interference in Syria (and every other geopolitical and strategic issue in the region), and Hamas activities.

...

Moreover, this move towards appeasement will send a signal to the Iranian leaders that the West, particularly the Obama administration, does not actually have the power the stop Tehran from enriching uranium. According to many experts and the Institute for Science and International Security (a nonproliferation monitoring group based in Washington, DC) Tehran’s current nuclear pace can theoretically create adequate bomb-grade uranium by the middle of 2014. Through all these signals of appeasement from the West and the Obama administration, Iranian Islamists and Ayatollahs are contently and joyfully assured that they can buy some more time— only less than a year— to make the “breakout capacity.”

Emboldening and Empowering Islamic Fundamentalists | FrontPage Magazine

 

[sambino510]

Including Iran in the Geneva discussions does nothing to "legitimize" or "support" their backing of the Alawite regime. How can one have a productive, inclusive discussion without both sides of a conflict participating? I'm sure Iran, the Syrian government, and others would all equally want to have their voice heard in such diplomatic discussions.

Iran is, indeed, a rational actor more-or-less that deserves to be treated like a legitimate country. They are a member to all treaties and international groups just like other nations, and though they do not treat their citizens as well as they perhaps should, they are one of the more non-violent countries in that region. They have not invaded another country in a century. Their support of "terrorism" is a subjective point of view. I'm sure when the U.S. supported the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in the 1980s, the Soviets felt we were supporting terrorists as well. It's a matter of perspective. If Iran wants to support Hezbollah, Hamas, whoever, they are allowed to do so. Even if they are not, bringing up their alleged human rights issues or terrorist support is an ad hominem, smoke screen argument meant to distract from the issue at hand, and de-legitimize them as a country.

As for President Obama removing some sanctions, this was partially done because the sanctions were preventing humanitarian groups from sending aid to Iranian citizens who were suffering from natural disasters, such as an earthquake several months ago. Another sanction they lifted was one that restricted Iranian athletes from interacting with athletes from other countries. I'm not sure what other sanctions have been lifted, but to my knowledge these are the only ones that have been removed. If others have been removed, it's probably as a "sign of good faith", to show the Iranian government that America doesn't simply demand everything and give up nothing. To me, that's the most basic rule of diplomacy.

Iran's nuclear program may be moving towards breakout capacity, but last I checked it is not illegal to be at breakout capacity. In a region as volatile as the Persian Gulf, it's only logical Iran would want to at least have the ABILITY to develop a bomb if they should choose to do so one day. However, I don't think they will create one at this time. Either way, sanctions, possible bombings, and otherwise are only going to give the Iran government further motivation to militarize their program.

 

[American_Jihad]

Including Iran in the Geneva discussions does nothing to "legitimize" or "support" their backing of the Alawite regime. How can one have a productive, inclusive discussion without both sides of a conflict participating? I'm sure Iran, the Syrian government, and others would all equally want to have their voice heard in such diplomatic discussions.

Iran is, indeed, a rational actor more-or-less that deserves to be treated like a legitimate country. They are a member to all treaties and international groups just like other nations, and though they do not treat their citizens as well as they perhaps should, they are one of the more non-violent countries in that region. They have not invaded another country in a century. Their support of "terrorism" is a subjective point of view. I'm sure when the U.S. supported the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in the 1980s, the Soviets felt we were supporting terrorists as well. It's a matter of perspective. If Iran wants to support Hezbollah, Hamas, whoever, they are allowed to do so. Even if they are not, bringing up their alleged human rights issues or terrorist support is an ad hominem, smoke screen argument meant to distract from the issue at hand, and de-legitimize them as a country.

As for President Obama removing some sanctions, this was partially done because the sanctions were preventing humanitarian groups from sending aid to Iranian citizens who were suffering from natural disasters, such as an earthquake several months ago. Another sanction they lifted was one that restricted Iranian athletes from interacting with athletes from other countries. I'm not sure what other sanctions have been lifted, but to my knowledge these are the only ones that have been removed. If others have been removed, it's probably as a "sign of good faith", to show the Iranian government that America doesn't simply demand everything and give up nothing. To me, that's the most basic rule of diplomacy.

Iran's nuclear program may be moving towards breakout capacity, but last I checked it is not illegal to be at breakout capacity. In a region as volatile as the Persian Gulf, it's only logical Iran would want to at least have the ABILITY to develop a bomb if they should choose to do so one day. However, I don't think they will create one at this time. Either way, sanctions, possible bombings, and otherwise are only going to give the Iran government further motivation to militarize their program.

I have no problem with iran wanting a nuke, where would they like it delivered...

 

[S.J.]

We should be thankful for Obama's presidency. It shows us who all the enemies are.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Until the "ayatollah" loses his power, Iran should not be trusted.

 

[Billo_Really]

I have no problem with iran wanting a nuke, where would they like it delivered...

Latest intel reports say if Iran did build a bomb, all indications are that it would be used for defensive purposes only. No one in the Iranian leadership has any intentions of using a nuke to invade other country's.

 

[American_Jihad]

I have no problem with iran wanting a nuke, where would they like it delivered...

Latest intel reports say if Iran did build a bomb, all indications are that it would be used for defensive purposes only. No one in the Iranian leadership has any intentions of using a nuke to invade other country's.

...

 

[Billo_Really]

...

How the fuck would you know?

You haven't even showed any evidence they've weaponized their nuclear program.

Until you can do that, shut your fuckin' mouth!

 

[American_Jihad]

...

How the fuck would you know?

You haven't even showed any evidence they've weaponized their nuclear program.

Until you can do that, shut your fuckin' mouth!

Back to you cocksucker, give me some links or

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRxhkbk4lVM]STFU BITCH - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Billo_Really]

Back to you cocksucker, give me some links or

STFU BITCH - YouTube

It's more than obvious you're a big user of Brown 25.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRPQSxp25z4]The Groove Tube - Brown 25 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[sambino510]

There is not necessarily "evidence" that, if Iran developed a nuke, they would only use it for defensive purposes. However, there's no reason to believe they would use it offensively either. In fact, I would argue that no country on this planet would be irrational and self-destructive enough to use a nuclear weapon on another country. In the hypothetical scenario where Iran does develop a nuke, the only thing America should be afraid of is a regional power shift. Meaning, if Iran had a nuclear weapon or two, we couldn't necessarily stop them from their alleged meddling in neighboring countries. Then again, if no country is willing to use said weapons, they become a moot point and are simply irrelevant. Nukes are just psychological mind games.

Personally, I think Iran having a nuke wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, as they would provide a counterbalance to Israel's nukes, similar to the stand-off between Pakistan and India. That being said, I don't think they are pursuing this option, and simply want to use 5% enriched uranium for energy purposes and 20% enriched uranium for research reactors. Or, at least, I've seen zero evidence to make me think otherwise.

 

[sambino510]

Until the "ayatollah" loses his power, Iran should not be trusted.

What does the Ayatollah have to do with anything? He might not like us, but that is due to Iran's history as a country that has over the years been colonized and meddled with by Western powers. It seems only appropriate that after experiences with the U.K. and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company or the U.S. and the 1953 coup and 1980s Iran-Iraq War that Iran, and Iran's Supreme Leader, would harbor some ill will towards our country and our country's allies. I don't think that justifies taking violent action against us, but so far they haven't, and we've done far more damage to them than they could ever do to us.

Our relationship with Iran will not improve until we DO trust them. It is not whatever perceived threat that Iran poses that will destroy us; it is our paranoia towards them and other countries that will tear us apart in the long run. We must take the American concept of "innocent until proven guilty" and apply it to nations like Iran, specifically in the case of their nuclear program.

 

[sambino510]

Including Iran in the Geneva discussions does nothing to "legitimize" or "support" their backing of the Alawite regime. How can one have a productive, inclusive discussion without both sides of a conflict participating? I'm sure Iran, the Syrian government, and others would all equally want to have their voice heard in such diplomatic discussions.

Iran is, indeed, a rational actor more-or-less that deserves to be treated like a legitimate country. They are a member to all treaties and international groups just like other nations, and though they do not treat their citizens as well as they perhaps should, they are one of the more non-violent countries in that region. They have not invaded another country in a century. Their support of "terrorism" is a subjective point of view. I'm sure when the U.S. supported the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in the 1980s, the Soviets felt we were supporting terrorists as well. It's a matter of perspective. If Iran wants to support Hezbollah, Hamas, whoever, they are allowed to do so. Even if they are not, bringing up their alleged human rights issues or terrorist support is an ad hominem, smoke screen argument meant to distract from the issue at hand, and de-legitimize them as a country.

As for President Obama removing some sanctions, this was partially done because the sanctions were preventing humanitarian groups from sending aid to Iranian citizens who were suffering from natural disasters, such as an earthquake several months ago. Another sanction they lifted was one that restricted Iranian athletes from interacting with athletes from other countries. I'm not sure what other sanctions have been lifted, but to my knowledge these are the only ones that have been removed. If others have been removed, it's probably as a "sign of good faith", to show the Iranian government that America doesn't simply demand everything and give up nothing. To me, that's the most basic rule of diplomacy.

Iran's nuclear program may be moving towards breakout capacity, but last I checked it is not illegal to be at breakout capacity. In a region as volatile as the Persian Gulf, it's only logical Iran would want to at least have the ABILITY to develop a bomb if they should choose to do so one day. However, I don't think they will create one at this time. Either way, sanctions, possible bombings, and otherwise are only going to give the Iran government further motivation to militarize their program.

I have no problem with iran wanting a nuke, where would they like it delivered...

Well seeing as how if we nuked Iran, or anyone else for that matter, the entire world would likely retaliate against us, I don't think nuking Iran is a great idea. Frankly, nuclear weapons are a joke, used to scare people like me and you into hating a certain country or supporting a particular war. We can't let the fear and paranoia control the way we think.

 

[sambino510]

We should be thankful for Obama's presidency. It shows us who all the enemies are.

And who are those enemies exactly?

 

[American_Jihad]

Including Iran in the Geneva discussions does nothing to "legitimize" or "support" their backing of the Alawite regime. How can one have a productive, inclusive discussion without both sides of a conflict participating? I'm sure Iran, the Syrian government, and others would all equally want to have their voice heard in such diplomatic discussions.

Iran is, indeed, a rational actor more-or-less that deserves to be treated like a legitimate country. They are a member to all treaties and international groups just like other nations, and though they do not treat their citizens as well as they perhaps should, they are one of the more non-violent countries in that region. They have not invaded another country in a century. Their support of "terrorism" is a subjective point of view. I'm sure when the U.S. supported the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in the 1980s, the Soviets felt we were supporting terrorists as well. It's a matter of perspective. If Iran wants to support Hezbollah, Hamas, whoever, they are allowed to do so. Even if they are not, bringing up their alleged human rights issues or terrorist support is an ad hominem, smoke screen argument meant to distract from the issue at hand, and de-legitimize them as a country.

As for President Obama removing some sanctions, this was partially done because the sanctions were preventing humanitarian groups from sending aid to Iranian citizens who were suffering from natural disasters, such as an earthquake several months ago. Another sanction they lifted was one that restricted Iranian athletes from interacting with athletes from other countries. I'm not sure what other sanctions have been lifted, but to my knowledge these are the only ones that have been removed. If others have been removed, it's probably as a "sign of good faith", to show the Iranian government that America doesn't simply demand everything and give up nothing. To me, that's the most basic rule of diplomacy.

Iran's nuclear program may be moving towards breakout capacity, but last I checked it is not illegal to be at breakout capacity. In a region as volatile as the Persian Gulf, it's only logical Iran would want to at least have the ABILITY to develop a bomb if they should choose to do so one day. However, I don't think they will create one at this time. Either way, sanctions, possible bombings, and otherwise are only going to give the Iran government further motivation to militarize their program.

I have no problem with iran wanting a nuke, where would they like it delivered...

Well seeing as how if we nuked Iran, or anyone else for that matter, the entire world would likely retaliate against us, I don't think nuking Iran is a great idea. Frankly, nuclear weapons are a joke, used to scare people like me and you into hating a certain country or supporting a particular war. We can't let the fear and paranoia control the way we think.

Can't you tell when someone is using satire...

 

[American_Jihad]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPdN_5xZfL8]IS AHMADINEJAD IRAN BEHIND MIDDLE EAST CHAOS REVOLUTION IMAM MAHDI LIBYA EGYPT - YouTube[/ame]

https://www.google.com/search?sourc...ing+for+the+twelfth+imam+to+come+out+the+well

The Iranian clerical rulers’ entire theocratic ideology is built around Shiite fundamentalist extremism and violence. They believe that chaos is necessary to bring about the early return of the 12th Imam, the latest in the succession of imams believed by some Islamic Shiite fundamentalists to be the direct descendants of Prophet Muhammad and the carriers of his message on earth.

According to such believers, the 12th Imam will return just before the end of the world, preceded by several years of horrendous world chaos. Before there can be peace and justice under sharia law, there must first be war and chaos. The Imam will force people to convert to Islam or be beheaded, ruling over the Arabs and world for 7 years before finally bringing harmony and total peace under one world religion, Islam.

Supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei has reportedly issued a fatwah demanding that he be obeyed as the earthly “deputy” of both the Prophet Muhammad and the 12th Imam. In July 2010, this supreme leader is said to have claimed that he actually met with the 12th Imam.

Khamenei wants to see Israel, the “Little Satan” which he hates, destroyed as part of the process to prepare for the 12th Imam’s arrival. Last year he declared that “From now on, in any place, if any nation or any group confronts the Zionist regime, we will endorse and we will help. We have no fear expressing this. The Zionist regime is a real cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut, God Willing.”

Ayatollah Khamenei linked Israel and the United States, the Great Satan, together as the mortal enemies of the 12th Imam and declared through a spokesman in August 2009:

“We have to train honest forces that can stop the obstacles that may hinder the coming of the Mahdi like the United States and Israel.”

In February, 2011, Khamenei proclaimed: “We will never forget who the main enemy is. We continue to shout passionately: Death to America, death to Israel.”

Obama?s Renewed Iranian Romance | FrontPage Magazine

Will they use the bomb...

 

[S.J.]

We should be thankful for Obama's presidency. It shows us who all the enemies are.

And who are those enemies exactly?

You mean besides you? Well, people who go along with him when they can see what he's doing to our country (the enemies within). Also, we know that he is more friendly toward those who oppose the U.S. than those who have always supported us in the past. In short, after 5 years of him, we pretty much know that anyone he sees as a friend is most likely going to be our enemy. Birds of a feather.

 

[Billo_Really]

You mean besides you? Well, people who go along with him when they can see what he's doing to our country (the enemies within).

If you think people who disagree with you are enemies, then this isn't "your" country. That mindset is more akin to Weimar, Germany, than it is to the United States of America. Because here in this country, dissent is one of our Founding principles and an American value. Which, obviously, you have issues with.

So go to Weimar! Be with your own kind.

Also, we know that he is more friendly toward those who oppose the U.S. than those who have always supported us in the past.

And that's based on what?

Usually, the ones that oppose us, are the ones we have happened to bomb the shit out of. And I don't know what planet you're from, but bombing the shit out of people, is not being friendly.

In short, after 5 years of him, we pretty much know that anyone he sees as a friend is most likely going to be our enemy. Birds of a feather.

Spoken like a true brownshirt.

 

[sambino510]

We should be thankful for Obama's presidency. It shows us who all the enemies are.

And who are those enemies exactly?

You mean besides you? Well, people who go along with him when they can see what he's doing to our country (the enemies within). Also, we know that he is more friendly toward those who oppose the U.S. than those who have always supported us in the past. In short, after 5 years of him, we pretty much know that anyone he sees as a friend is most likely going to be our enemy. Birds of a feather.

Could you name the supposed "friendly" countries that he is treating like enemies? I just want some specifics is all.

Personally, I can name some for you. For instance, the NSA has been spying on Merkel of Germany, Hollande of France, and several South American leaders. Obama claims to know nothing about it, but I find that hard to believe. So, in that regard, that could be seen as not Obama SPECIFICALLY but the U.S. government in general treating some of our allies like enemies.

However, our biggest ally, Israel, has never been treated better. Sure, President Obama may be a bit critical of their treatment of Palestine, but he still gives them a check for 3 billion dollars a year in military aid, and has absolutely wrecked Israel's primary enemy, Iran, through economic sanctions. So I see no reason to believe that Obama's foreign policy is much different than former President Bush's, until I see some evidence.

Also, I'm not sure what about me makes you think I'm your "enemy". I'm just trying to have an interesting political discussion.

 

[S.J.]

You mean besides you? Well, people who go along with him when they can see what he's doing to our country (the enemies within).

If you think people who disagree with you are enemies, then this isn't "your" country. That mindset is more akin to Weimar, Germany, than it is to the United States of America. Because here in this country, dissent is one of our Founding principles and an American value. Which, obviously, you have issues with.

So go to Weimar! Be with your own kind.

Also, we know that he is more friendly toward those who oppose the U.S. than those who have always supported us in the past.

And that's based on what?

Usually, the ones that oppose us, are the ones we have happened to bomb the shit out of. And I don't know what planet you're from, but bombing the shit out of people, is not being friendly.

In short, after 5 years of him, we pretty much know that anyone he sees as a friend is most likely going to be our enemy. Birds of a feather.

Spoken like a true brownshirt.

I'm gonna have to neg you for that bullshit. I never said that and you know it. If you have to resort to misquoting people to make a point, it shows how empty your arguments are.