Protest outside Iranian Embassy?

InFront

But that's nothing new - he'd like to get rid of the regime - that's not genocidal it's a legitimate political opinion. Whether you agree with it or not is your opinion, wanting to get rid of a government or an administration is not illegal.

Look, I think Ahmedinejad is an anti Semetic, but the comment you point to is obviously about a regime. Lets not exaggerate it. There is already enough propoganda coming from the news media (east and west) so lets not add to it on boards

InFront

InFront wrote:

wanting to get rid of a government or an administration is not illegal.

Wanting no.
Actioning yes.
Arming Hezbollah yes.

Húrin

My article was deleted from Indymedia despite breaking none of the rules.

here's your evidence. I would have thought that requiring evidence for Iran's supplying of Hezbollah would be equivalent to requiring evidence that the sky is blue!

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525807791&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/index.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/19/news/missile.php

mr_angry

Earthman wrote:

Tens upon top of tens of thousands have died starving in Africa often as a result of wars and theres no mass protests or grumbling.
I'm of the firm view based on observing these things that you are not going to get many/any protests against Iran or Syria as its inconvenient to the bigger picture in the eyes of the anti war movement...

Yes, but outside of Nigeria, there's comparitively very little oil in Africa. Therefore our Western governments and media are happily prepared to ignore it. The reason the whole middle east thing is getting so much attention is because the West desperately needs Israel as an ally in the region so that they can assert their own influence and keep the oil flowing. If there was no oil, the Western governments would happily let every little tribe / country butcher each other until kingdom come*.


*Sorry, accidental potential Zionist phraseology there.

Mick86

InFront wrote:

But that's nothing new - he'd like to get rid of the regime -...

He referred to the Zionist regime not the Israeli government. Zionism is the ideology that supports a Jewish homeland in Israel. By Zionist regime, in my opinion, he means that Jewish homeland.

I would also question the legality of advocating the removal of a democratically elected government by the way. But as I said I don't think that's what he meant.

Mick86

H&#250 wrote: »

My article was deleted from Indymedia despite breaking none of the rules.

here's your evidence. I would have thought that requiring evidence for Iran's supplying of Hezbollah would be equivalent to requiring evidence that the sky is blue!

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525807791&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/index.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/19/news/missile.php

Shocking.:D

Mick86

mr_angry wrote:

Yes, but outside of Nigeria, there's comparitively very little oil in Africa.....

There's no oil in Israel or Lebanon either.

New_Departure06

Mick86 wrote:

Iran and Hezbollah are far greater warmongers than the Israelis. Israel obviously has no interest in building an empire by the way or it would have done so already. Lets try and have a sensible discussion and avoid the clichés. If you are genuinely anti-war you should protest against violence from both sides.

They are already building an empire in the West bank through their illegal settlements which the US media largely covers up. Did you know CNN has a policy of calling the settlements "Jewish neighbourhoods"? Hence when they talk about a Hamas attack on an illegal Jewish colony on occupied land, they refer to it as an attack on a "Jewish neighbourhood" which is a blatently misleading portrayal. They have been bullied by the pro-Israel lobby in the US into sanitising langauge in this way. The settlements are an attempt by Israel to wreck the prospects of a viable Palestinian state. Even the 'generous' Barak plan would have left water-supplies and air-space under Israeli control, along with the West Bank's borders and Gaza's coastline. A huge volume of the settlements were also to remain bang in the middle of the West Bank, such that Israeli army checkpoints protecting them would divide the Palestinian state into a serious of 'islands' of territories that would not be contiguous. It would be like encountering British checkpoints to protect British settlements between say Dublin and Kildare etc. The Palestinians could never have accepted such a joke of a deal, which is probably which Israel proposed it.

The Intifada began with Sharon's provocative visit to the Temple Mount with a large security entourage. It was not, unlike what the pro-Israel crowd claimed, ordered by Arafat. When Israel left Gaza, it continued bombing it and killed 19 civilians on the beach. Maybe this was Olmert seeking to provoke a confrontation there so he could go back in (it wasn't Olmert who decided on the withdrawl). Hence we saw the capture of Cpl. Gilad Shalit. Everything has to be seen in context.

Mick86

New_Departure06 wrote:

They are already building an empire in the West bank through their illegal settlements which the US media largely covers up.....

If you want to go back far enough these problems began as soon as Jews began to move back to Palestine in the 19th century.The excuse of Sharon visiting the Temple Mount is fairly feeble. It's a Jewish holy site as well as a Muslim one. Four West Bank settlements were closed in 2005 at the same time as the Gaza Strip settlements. The reward for evacuating Gaza was an increase in terrorist attacks on Israel. The Palestinians have acted in bad faith as they always will.

However Israel has a serious PR problem. It is always presented as the aggressor by it's neighbours and by it's western enemies. Israel should bite the bullet, evacuate the West Bank, Gaza and Chebaa Farms and demand the UN secure these areas. Likewise the Golan should be occupied by a UN force. This should remove any excuse for attacking Israel.

New_Departure06

If you want to go back far enough these problems began as soon as Jews began to move back to Palestine in the 19th century.The excuse of Sharon visiting the Temple Mount is fairly feeble. It's a Jewish holy site as well as a Muslim one. Four West Bank settlements were closed in 2005 at the same time as the Gaza Strip settlements. The reward for evacuating Gaza was an increase in terrorist attacks on Israel. The Palestinians have acted in bad faith as they always will.

Those West Bank settlements were dismantled while the expansion of other settlements continued rapidly. Also the dismantled ones were little more than isolated and small outposts. The Gaza withdrawal was followed by continued Israeli Air Force bombing raids and Israeli "targeted killings", and the slaughter of 19 Palestinians on a beach in Gaza. This led to the capture of the Israeli soldiers. So it's not quite as simple as you make out.

Húrin

Mick86 wrote:

Shocking.:D

Seriously, the first reply I got to my article was "where's the proof that Iran is arming Hezbollah???" Where's the proof that the sky is blue??

mike65

H&#250 wrote: »

My article was deleted from Indymedia despite breaking none of the rules.

I just went looking for it and yep its gone. I trust you are e-mailing the leftist cabal who run the site.

I just e-mailed them.

Mike.

InFront

H&#250 wrote: »

Seriously, the first reply I got to my article was "where's the proof that Iran is arming Hezbollah???"

Seriously? Wow.

No, seriously. Show us the proof. Your earlier links (Jerusalem post, FAS (political group) and an article saying "we have no proof") does not constitute proof. I believe there is Iranian involvement with the terrorists, dont get me wrong, but actively arming them - wheres the proof? And Im not talking about FAS...

InFront

InFront wrote:

Seriously? Wow.

No, seriously. Show us the proof. Your earlier links (Jerusalem post, FAS (political group) and an article saying "we have no proof") does not constitute proof. I believe there is Iranian involvement with the terrorists, dont get me wrong, but actively arming them - wheres the proof? And Im not talking about FAS...

You believe theres Iranian involvement?
Your statement has the tone of it being a tiny involvement...
How about these guys opinion ? That unbiased enough for you?

http://www.asharqalawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=3&id=5884

And

http://www.asharqalawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=1&id=5651

InFront

Earthman wrote:

You believe theres Iranian involvement?
Your statement has the tone of it being a tiny involvement...
How about these guys opinion ? That unbiased enough for you?

http://www.asharqalawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=3&id=5884

And

http://www.asharqalawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=1&id=5651

It does not have the tone of a 'tiny' involvement. I for one am not so self confident as some, to say that I can prove the what the rest of the world cannot prove, including the UN and The USA - The extent of Iranian involvement with Hezbollah and whether or not Iran is actively arming Hezbollah, as Hurin has claimed to have proven. It has never been proven, by anyone.

There are close ties between Hezbollah and Iran and Syria. Since the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon earlier on in the year the Iranian involvement has probably gotten stronger. But I feel what is being suggested is that Iran (especially) is being targeted as Hezbollah in the pro-israeli side to take advantage of a weakness in the Western mind that is automatically suspicious of an Islamic state. Much of this is propaganda in my opinion.

What about Bonyad-e Shahid, one member (Fayad) is supposed to have sent around 50 million dollars to Hezbollah from his fundraising in South America. People are forgetting, or ignoring, that whatever the Iranian involvement is, there is much more going on than that. If Israel and Syria were wiped off the map (in terms of the respective regimes:rolleyes: ), there would still be a Hezbollah. How much, a value, that Hezbollah would be effected - nobody knows - there is no proof of how they are being supported by Iran and Syria. None.

Earthman, with respect, your links do not prove that Iran is arming Hezbollah. You might take that opinion from reading the last link to Asharq Al-awsat, but it is certainly nowhere near proof. The first article is a homepage for the paper , the second article an interesting read on the history of Hezbollah and the third is from an unnamed source that provides zero evidence to back up his claims. You have to be careful about who you believe in a war, especially if a source making very serious accusations is unnamed and there is consistent failure to prove his claims. The history of Iranian extremism with Hezbollah in the early 80s and again in more recent years is very inviting as 'proof', but unfortunately it does not equate to proof at all, no matter how much you bend and twist it.

So, Im not saying don't boycott Iran, in fact, bicycling can be good for the mind as well as the heart. What I am saying is that people who are throwing around claims of 'proof' or claiming that oh it's so obvious that proof isn't even required (so dont ask for it) have very hollow arguments. Personally, I dont like Iran, but Im not going to make claims about them that I can't back up with credible evidence.

You might remember the the last time we applied "it must be so" style proof to an Arab nation. And yet as Scott Ritter later told us, all of what Saddam had once had come to to rust and waste.

Mick86

New_Departure06 wrote:

Those West Bank settlements were dismantled while the expansion of other settlements continued rapidly. Also the dismantled ones were little more than isolated and small outposts. The Gaza withdrawal was followed by continued Israeli Air Force bombing raids and Israeli "targeted killings", and the slaughter of 19 Palestinians on a beach in Gaza. This led to the capture of the Israeli soldiers. So it's not quite as simple as you make out.

The attacks from Gaza did not stop despite a complete Israeli withdrawal. Naturally the Israelis retaliated against those attacks. No matter what concessions are given to teh Palestinians the will not buy peace.

Mick86

H&#250 wrote: »

Seriously, the first reply I got to my article was "where's the proof that Iran is arming Hezbollah???" Where's the proof that the sky is blue??

What did you expect? Indymedia, the anti-war movements and Palestine support groups operate to an agenda and with an automatic anti-Israeli, anti-American bias. They will not protest against Israel's enemies.

mike65

Heres the reply I got from indymedia

Hi

From your mail I have little idea of what you are
talking about as you provide neither a publication
date, author or title of the piece you claim was
'pulled.'

I can only guess the article you refer to was one
submitted by an autor called Ian and titled 'Protest
outside Iranian Embassy?' The reasons given for its
hiding in our editorial archive (note: you too can
join and view all editorial actions at
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-ireland-editorial)
was one I agree with, and was as follows: 'not
news/info in any shape, not an analysis, just a
question.'

So it was in breach of guideline 8 which encourages
people not to engage in the 'Asking of questions -
particular or general questions without any other
content' or in posting articles that consist of
'articles which consist entirely of unsubstantiated
opinions or personal musings without any supporting
evidence or other content.'

Mike.

InFront

Mick86 wrote:

.... operate to an agenda and with an automatic anti-Israeli, anti-American bias. They will not protest against Israel's enemies.

"Mr Fisk, are you on some kind of a crusade?"

lostexpectation

hurin your posting was weak, nothing better then any other smartarse could have said, you have to work at it much harder than that if your serious about it, go ahead and protest outside the Iranian place and then it will be news.

Mick86

InFront wrote:

"Mr Fisk, are you on some kind of a crusade?"

Nobody would categorise Robert Fisk as pro-Israeli.

InFront

<drags own comment through ditch>

Of course not. I was speaking in terms of people being blinded from real news and factual evidence by virtue of spinning their own propaganda.

i.e. discrediting Indymedia for pulling what, by all accounts, sounds like a fairly ridiculous posting - claiming that Indymedia are therrfore on some sort of underhand mission.

Húrin

lostexpectation wrote:

hurin your posting was weak, nothing better then any other smartarse could have said, you have to work at it much harder than that if your serious about it, go ahead and protest outside the Iranian place and then it will be news.

Alone?

mike65 wrote:

I just went looking for it and yep its gone. I trust you are e-mailing the leftist cabal who run the site.

I am a leftist. I don't see why these particuar leftists are acting like such pigs.

InFront wrote:

Seriously? Wow.

No, seriously. Show us the proof. Your earlier links (Jerusalem post, FAS (political group) and an article saying "we have no proof") does not constitute proof.

Why not?

It's really a rather stereotypical trick you're pulling... if you don't like proof, just claim that the source is too biased to be believable. :rolleyes:

InFront

InFront wrote:

Earthman, with respect, your links do not prove that Iran is arming Hezbollah. You might take that opinion from reading the last link to Asharq Al-awsat, but it is certainly nowhere near proof. The first article is a homepage for the paper , the second article an interesting read on the history of Hezbollah and the third is from an unnamed source that provides zero evidence to back up his claims. You have to be careful about who you believe in a war, especially if a source making very serious accusations is unnamed and there is consistent failure to prove his claims.

Well you dissed an Israeli source as biased for printing similar,now you are dissing an Arab source.Both cannot have the same bias.
But yeah you're right-for absolute certainty we should have documentary evidence,step by step.
I mean we give Sinn Féin people the same benefit of the doubt over here dont we...they couldnt have anything but tenous links with the IRA either.
Pretty similar.

Mind you when I see a respected Arab newspaper quoting sources close to the Iranian revolutionary guard,I tend to take it as having more weight than a poster on here expressing an opinion that,you shouldnt listen to this untill you have photographic evidence.
Thats all a bit paisleyite.

So, Im not saying don't boycott Iran, in fact, bicycling can be good for the mind as well as the heart. What I am saying is that people who are throwing around claims of 'proof' or claiming that oh it's so obvious that proof isn't even required (so dont ask for it) have very hollow arguments. Personally, I dont like Iran, but Im not going to make claims about them that I can't back up with credible evidence.

It's no more hollow tbh than any statement of opinion dissing a journalists unnamed sources without proof that the sources are made up...

In other words we are dealing with the basis for forming an opinion here and to be frank with you, theres lots more fertiliser out there for the seeds of Iranian involvement than there is for their lack of involvement.
Thats an undeniable fact.
I'm fairly happy to be of the opinion that Iran are supporting hezbollah but then thats my perogative.If you want to try to convince me other wise feel free,you'll have your work cut out for you though

InFront

I think you are confused, because my point has just been regurgitated in your post (presumably) criticising my point.

I have serious problems with the Iranian government. I dont doubt that Iran have links to Hezbollah, and Syria too. In fact they admit that.

It has been claimed by Hurin (possibly you as well?) that Iran are currently arming Hezbollah. Unfortunately, these links are not proof of that. I'm not denying the link is there, just denying that Hurin or you have just proven what nobody on the international scene has been able to prove. Hurin claimed to have proved Iranian culpability earlier on, and then you threw your lot in with him. In my opinion, it's a silly statement to make.

This reminds me of a report on FOX News today (I was surfing channels:o ) where they had present a very important FOX News spokesman Major General Bob Seales, who "knows all the details of the Hezbollah Weaponry". The claims made above are equally as ridiculous as that.

lostexpectation

H&#250 wrote: »

Alone?


I am a leftist. I don't see why these particuar leftists are acting like such pigs.


Why not?

It's really a rather stereotypical trick you're pulling... if you don't like proof, just claim that the source is too biased to be believable. :rolleyes:

hurin the thing is you don't actually want to protest outside the iranian embassy if you did you already have done so, and built from there, you know someone already could have and not gotten coverage, your posts here and elsewhere have only been about trying to make some weakass point that has made a dozen times in much better depth by many others on the boards, hey look this piggish anti-war is supportting hezbollah, wow aren't I so fair and balanced, I told you gotta work much harder, put more work into it, if your are serious about it.

Mick86

InFront wrote:

<drags own comment through ditch>

Of course not. I was speaking in terms of people being blinded from real news and factual evidence by virtue of spinning their own propaganda.

i.e. discrediting Indymedia for pulling what, by all accounts, sounds like a fairly ridiculous posting - claiming that Indymedia are therrfore on some sort of underhand mission.

Why do you claim to have a handle on the truth? I don't. I have a low opinion of Indymedia and likeminded groups. That's just my opinion of course.

Mick86

InFront wrote:

It has been claimed by Hurin (possibly you as well?) that Iran are currently arming Hezbollah. Unfortunately, these links are not proof of that. I'm not denying the link is there, just denying that Hurin or you have just proven what nobody on the international scene has been able to prove. .

You presumably accept from media accounts that Israel is bombing Lebanon but refuse to accept media accounts that Iran is arming Hezbollah. Do you just accept the facts that suit you and ignore those that don't?

Dar

Mick86 wrote:

You presumably accept from media accounts that Israel is bombing Lebanon but refuse to accept media accounts that Iran is arming Hezbollah. Do you just accept the facts that suit you and ignore those that don't?

It's a lot easier to trust in what you see with your own eyes. We've all seen the footage showing the results of Israeli bombing. What we have not seen is the video showing crates of weaponry wrapped in a nice pink ribbon and a 'With Compliments' card signed by Iran.

InFront

InFront wrote:

It has been claimed by Hurin (possibly you as well?) that Iran are currently arming Hezbollah. Unfortunately, these links are not proof of that. I'm not denying the link is there, just denying that Hurin or you have just proven what nobody on the international scene has been able to prove. Hurin claimed to have proved Iranian culpability earlier on, and then you threw your lot in with him. In my opinion, it's a silly statement to make.

Actually what I said was that I am of the firm view that Iran are (and that I am happy in that view unless its shown to be wrong) training and arming hezbollah.I'm happy to bow to the vast bulk of media reports that I've seen in coming to that view.

You have the corollary view formed with equal happiness it would seem ie unless you inspect the boxes they cant be there.Well they're coming from somewhere and I doubt its from a pro western/Israeli source.Both of us have taken a view.