Due to its illegal, many suspect weaponized, nuke activities, there are total of six United Nations Security Council resolutions against IRR, the Islamist Rapist Republic. Of those six resolutions five impose some form of sanctions on IRR.
The Islamist Rapists and their lobbies maintain the sanctions to be illegal and the nuke file should not have been sent to the UNSC in the first place. They further maintain IRR is not in breach of the Non-Proliferation Treaty which it is a signatory.
Needless to say their arguments do not hold water, the UNSC resolutions are the proof.
The Islamist Rapists and their lobbyists also try to connect sanctions to the “neo-cons and the Israeli lobby”, all the while forgetting about the very first U.S. sanction, the ILSA Act, was enacted by U.S. Congress during President Clinton’s Administration, a decidedly not a “neocon.”
It seems now that IRR and its lobbyists have failed to stop the gradual tightening of the sanctions, they are trying to play the, Iranian people are the target of sanctions, card.
The nuke acquiring messianic Islamist Rapists who on numerous occasions have threatened to wipe a member state of UN off the map, who consistently say their mission is to “manage the world”, are hard at work to impose war on Iran and the region.
To avoid that calamity, the sane world has to airtight the sanctions, openly help fed up Iranians with material help to overthrow their Islamist Rapist tyrants "reformist" and all, and do it NOW. The alternative to sanctions is unfathomable.
|Recently by Fred||Comments||Date|
ادا اطوار اسلامی
|Dec 05, 2012|
|Dec 05, 2012|
|Iranians are legitimate target|
|Dec 04, 2012|
|نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز||Dec 04|
|Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day||Lawyer says death sentence suspended||Dec 03|
|Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day||Iterview with mother||Dec 02|
|احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱||Dec 02|
|Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day||46 days on hunger strike||Dec 01|
|Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti||In Barcelona||Nov 30|
|گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی||Nov 30|
|Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day||Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years||Nov 30|
|محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین||Nov 29|
|Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day||Kurdish Activist on Death Row||Nov 28|
MOOSIRvaPIAZ,by LoverOfLiberty on Fri Nov 26, 2010 10:22 AM PST
While I respect you for taking the position that you advocate neither sanctions nor war on Iran because such activities could harm and do harm ordinary Iranians, I have to question what you think will change the situation in Iran, particularly for Iranians?
So, aside from Iran's external issues with other countries such as the US or with the UN regarding her nuclear program, what do think the Iranian public, internally, can do to change their situation within Iran?
Sanctions, Targeting Islamist Regime and it's security forcesby Roozbeh_Gilani on Wed Nov 24, 2010 09:33 AM PST
Should be the way forward, not a military attack. Iranian people themselves will take care of this Islamist regime, just a matter of time. No patriotic Iranian would support a military attack on his motherland. I have not seen Fred supporting a military attack on Iran in his blogs either. So I seriously question the motives behind any claims that he (or any other opponent of the islamist regime on this site) is "AIPAC", "zionist" etc supporter.
So stop screaming "AIPAC", "zioooonist", or "Jooooo" the moment someone criticises or supports international pressure on the islamist regime. You sound too much like your rahbar and his "president" and their basiji noche's.
"Personal business must yield to collective interest."
Haji nukeby Fred on Wed Nov 24, 2010 09:03 AM PST
Haji don’t get upset with me. It is not only me saying your client is in violation and therefore under sanctions. UNSC says so, so does IAEA which referred your client’s file to UNSC.
Many people including the President of United States suspect your Islamist Rapist brethrens’ illegal nuke program to be for weaponization.
Now be a good Haji nuke and try to convince the world they are wrong and you, the self described “world renowned scientist “, is right.
Wrong, wrong, and wrongby Mammad on Wed Nov 24, 2010 08:55 AM PST
Freddo: Iran is illegally enriching uranium.
Who said that? The UNSC and IAEA have never called it illegal, but have asked it to be suspended for clarification. But, the IAEA does not have the authority to make such a demands, and while the UNSC does have the authority, it violated the UN Charter when it did so. You do not think so? Give a reference to an IAEA report or UNSC Resolution that calls the program illegal.
Freddo: Iran's nuclear program is dual-use:
Of course it is; so also is x-ray used in medicine. So also are medical isotopes used in medicine. So also is NMR used in materials science, biology, medicine, etc. So also is banking, because it can be used for legitimate transactions, or be used by drug traffickers to transfer money!! Almost everything is dual use. The question is not duality. The question is its use.
Freddo: Iran's nuc program is suspected for weaponized nuke:
Where is the evidence? Where is the smoking gun? For nearly 3 years it was supposedly the laptop. Now, that has been set aside. Gareth Porter shredded the whole story into pieces, not to mention a simple test asked by experts two years ago to test the laptop, but was never carried out to test the authenticity of the laptop. The IAEA has not come up with the evidence, but it is after a proof of the negative which is impossible.
Freddo: Iran is in violation of NPT.
Here is when "dom-e khoroos az laaye abaa miyaad biroon." Freddo does not know what the NPT says (or does, but pretends otherwise), but counts on other people not knowing too. The NPT says a member state is in its violation if and ONLY IF
it makes a nuclear bomb
it helps others to do so
it transfers it nuc technology to a non-member state
Iran has not done any. Even the US has never ever said that Iran has violated the NPT.
Just because Freddo says so does it make it so!
Haj Mammad, the nuc lobbyist
Illegal all aroundby Fred on Wed Nov 24, 2010 03:27 AM PST
Islamist Rapist Republic is illegally enriching uranium.
IRR is illegally stockpiling enriched uranium.
IRR is not answering all of the IAEA’s questions about its vast illegal nuke enrichment program.
Ergo, Islamist Rapist Republic’s vast dual purpose nuke program is not only illegal it is suspected of being for weaponized nuke purposes which, as a signatory to NPT, that too is illegal.
Hmmmmmby HHH on Tue Nov 23, 2010 08:46 PM PST
How can something be "ILLEGAL" while it's still just "SUSPECTED"?!
It's like a wife saying: John, you bastard, I hate your guts, you disgust me, I want divorce, I "suspect" that you've cheated on me!
sanctions wont workby mahmoudg on Tue Nov 23, 2010 11:02 AM PST
If the government of the Islamic Rapist Cultists gave a damn about the people, then the tough sanctions would work. But these guys dont, their only concern is survival at any cost. So follow these tough sanctions with surgical attacks on their homes, Basij and IRGC sites and you will see how quickly the population will recycle these morons out of power.
hamsade ghadimiby Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Tue Nov 23, 2010 08:26 AM PST
I am sorry if I misunderstood you. The only reason I brought Shah up was that at the time I was a young man. I was not a fan of Shah but figured he was better than Khomeini and therefore supported him.
The main thing about Palestinians is that I think Islamist regime will use them. The Palestinians are more loyal to IRI than Iranian soliders. Therefore it is likely they will be used to attack people. That is when real Iranian soliders will join the people.
...by hamsade ghadimi on Tue Nov 23, 2010 08:06 AM PST
vpk, i wasn't yelling at you and just re-using your example of a successful sanctions campaign against an oppressive regime. i don't know why you brought up the shah! the unwitting accomplice to this whole mess.
of course, palestinans, nukes and sanctions are the tools of regime supporters to deflect attention from the atrocities in iran. and ironically they use these same issues to portray themselves as compassionate!
hamsade ghadimiby Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Tue Nov 23, 2010 07:56 AM PST
Don't yell at me ! I am against IRI; have been since the day it came to power. In fact I was against it in 1978 *before* it took power. I was supporting the Shah. Did you read my post?
All I am saying is that this gang won't go without a fight. Hopefully the Iranian forces will trun against them. We may well be looking at at lot of fighting. Specially if as I fear the Mollahs bring in their Palestinian and Lebanese goons.
Have you noted how the IRI supporters NEVER criticize the Palestinians? Because the IRI is planning to use them to remain in power.
war advocate Fred using the same old tacticsby MOOSIRvaPIAZ on Tue Nov 23, 2010 07:47 AM PST
picking and choosing text to promote his narrative. post the whole respond war advocate fred and stop trying to trivialize the parts that matter.
if it wasn't for iri, theby hamsade ghadimi on Tue Nov 23, 2010 07:44 AM PST
if it wasn't for iri, the iranian people wouldn't be subject to sanctions. if it wasn't for iri, the iranian people wouldn't be jailed, or brutally raped or murdered. if someone is concerned about iranian people, they should target their frustration and anger at iri. and yes vpk, sanctions were lauded before, during and after apartheid in south africa. and no vpk, sanctions in iraq were a different story. but no matter what the outcome was, it was the direct fault of those governments to bring misery onto their own people.
on the subject of proving and disproving. i'd like to see if boogandoo can "prove" that the webpage below is not his? :)
Rabid Islamist 4by Fred on Tue Nov 23, 2010 07:33 AM PST
Rabid Islamist failing to cite my words to back up his charge comes up with this:
“Furthermore, I have never seen you deny wanting war.”
If the rabid Islamist had read my blogs as carefully as he claims that he has, he would have realized how wrong he is.
However, to show him how deranged his Islamist tactic, a well known fallacy, sounds, I have not see the rabid Islamist condemn the massacre of Muslims by the Chinese. Therefore, that is proof of his love for the massacre of Muslims.
Rabid Islamist are funny.
Ever notice how the writerby Sargord Pirouz on Tue Nov 23, 2010 07:21 AM PST
Ever notice how the writer with the worst English skills in the "Fred" effort uses tags such as "clueless" and "rabid" whenever he disagrees with another's opinion?
There's such a shortage of rational, respectful dialog to this entire "Fred" effort.
Maybe war advocate Fred should practice what he preaches?by MOOSIRvaPIAZ on Tue Nov 23, 2010 06:59 AM PST
I have news for you war-advocate Fred. airtight sanctions is an act of war! it means war! it ends in war! advocating airtight sanctions is advocating war! So dont try to play dumb. you know exactly where it leads. Furthermore, I have never seen you deny wanting war. you even go on to
rationalize it and putting all the blame on the regime to clear your own
war-minded conscious. "before its too late..." is the tired alarmist phrase neocons use to convince their readers that its 5 minutes to midnight, that iran is nazi germany. not once have I see a blog post from you
condemning the words of Lieberman, Graham and others who constantly call
for military strikes on Iran. not once. All your time on iranian.com is spent hiding behind human rights issues in order to attack opponents of war and sanction. All you talk about is airtight
sanctions. So maybe I have a good reason to call you a war-advocate unlike you who first started equating me with Hitler by referring to me as "Mein Fuhrer" in response to my critic of your constant and blatant disregard for ordinary iranians. This went on for a couple of weeks. But that was too much for readers to bear, now you call me and anyone who speaks out openly against your neocon influenced policies a rabid islamist. You use almost the same tactics on NIAC.
Rabid Islamist 3by Fred on Tue Nov 23, 2010 05:50 AM PST
Rabid Islamists never learn. They think sane world is like their Islamist Rapist Republic, where they can charge anyone with anything and the onus is on their prey to disprove the charge.
Sorry rabid Islamist that is not how it is in the sane world. Prove you charge against me by citing my own words, I dare you!
war advocate Fred 2by MOOSIRvaPIAZ on Tue Nov 23, 2010 05:41 AM PST
Barry called me on it like Fred hates sanctions. again you are delluding yourself war advocate Fred. Perhaps people should go to that link and read the drivel themselves. What about you Fred? Do you believe in this drivel?
Particularly this bit:
"This analysis identifies patterns exhibited by the
Iranian government and the Iranian people since ancient times. Most
importantly, it identifies critical elements of Iranian culture that
have been systematically ignored by policymakers for decades. It is a
precise understanding of these cultural cues that should guide policy
objectives toward the Iranian government.
* Iranians expect a ruler to demonstrate resolve and
strength, and do whatever it takes to remain in power. The Western
concept of demanding that a leader subscribe to a moral and ethical code
does not resonate with Iranians. Telling Iranians that their ruler is
cruel will not convince the public that they need a new leader. To the
contrary, this will reinforce the idea that their ruler is strong. It is
only when Iranians become convinced that either their rulers lack the resolve to
do what is necessary to remain in power or that a stronger power will
protect them against their current tyrannical rulers, that they will speak out and try to overthrow leaders."
"* When the West establishes itself as the most powerful force and shows
strength and resolve, Iranians will most likely come on board. They do
not want to be on the losing side. If military action is eventually
required, the targeting of national symbols and leadership strongholds
may be enough to demonstrate that the balance of power in Iran is
quickly shifting. By applying this principle, the West may not need to
bomb Iran's nuclear facilities or launch a large-scale invasion to bring
down Iran's rulers and stop the nuclear program."
Rabid Islamist 2by Fred on Tue Nov 23, 2010 05:11 AM PST
Rabid Islamist says it is on me, Fred, to disprove his, that is the rabid Islamist’s charge against me. That is how Islamist logic goes.
BTW rabid Islamist you tried that logic on Barry Rubin, when he called you on it, you had nothing to back up your Islamist charge.
Responsesby Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Tue Nov 23, 2010 04:30 AM PST
How about sanctions that brought down apartheid? Just trying to be fair. Basically sanctions work if the government gives a damn about people. If not they don't work. That argues that they won't work in Iran. Specially because IRI makes sure to pay its goons well. However they do "soften" up the regime.
On the other hand sanctions may just get people mad enough to rise. If Iranian forces give a damn about people they will side with people. Not with IRI.
My own prediction is that IRI will lose faith in Iranian forces. The mollahs will fear that Iranian forces will side with the people over them. They will therefore import Palestinian and Lebanese goons. This will lead to an all out shooting match between Iranians and imported IRI loyalist goons. The Iranian forces will win with help from population.
The result will be that Palestinians will once more make the wrong bet.
I dont have to prove anything war-advocate Fredby MOOSIRvaPIAZ on Tue Nov 23, 2010 04:24 AM PST
Your posts are like a template of what AIPAC and other war lobbies PR department did before they helped initiate the Iraq war. All the readers have to do is visit your page : //iranian.com/main/member/fred and start reading. from the begining to the end to realize that its text book war propaganda effort on the part of neocons and the lackies. How is Barry Rubin doing by the way?
you keep calling me rabid islamist as if that will stick. Sorry war-advocate Fred. I am not a rabid islamist. I am someone who is on to you.
Moosby Sargord Pirouz on Tue Nov 23, 2010 04:12 AM PST
You take these "Fred" characters much too seriously. They're fanatically anti-Iran. Not worth the effort of trying to reason with them. I merely take the time to point out the obvious incompetence of their amateurish propagandist effort.
For instance, consider this post's subtitle: "The alternative to sanctions is unfathomable". You must admit, it's sheer gobbledygook! lol
Rabid Islamistby Fred on Tue Nov 23, 2010 03:59 AM PST
Rabid Islamist says:
“What neocons like war-advocate Fred are …”
Shameless rabid Islamist liar, with my own words prove your charge!
clueless AIPAC lobbyist Fred.by MOOSIRvaPIAZ on Tue Nov 23, 2010 04:00 AM PST
What neocons like war-advocate Fred are really about:
the best way to destabilize a
ponderous, oppressive government such as Iran's is to ensure the growth
of a strong middle class in the target country with an educated and
politically active youth. Sanctions tend to do the opposite by denying
(or reducing) a country's access to trade, economic growth,
pharmaceuticals and health benefits, knowledge and innovation. It
stigmatizes countries' populations against the world, which often
entrenches hard-line governments with staunch supporters. Sanctions
also reduce positive effect of the global community's political
feedback: if a country is already a pariah, their leaders have little
incentive to conform to accepted norms (e.g. human rights).
In our quest to punish the regime for its behavior we are
economically isolating Iran and Iranians from the liberal democracies
that are the western world. In the long term this could destroy the very
middle-class that made the June uprising of '09 possible. It could help
to cement the tyrannical regime's reign over the Iranian people,
prolonging its shelf life. And naturally IRI is forced to deal with
non-western powers, moving Iran further towards questionable regional
actors like Russia and China.
"Criminalizing Consequences of
Sanctions," Peter Andreas, International
Studies Quarterly 49 (June
2005): pp. 335-60.
One of the biggest flaws of the sanctions literature has been the
failure to discuss unintended consequences. Humanitarian costs have been
raised above, but what about other side effects? Peter Andreas looks at
the consequences of the multilateral sanctions directed at the former
Yugoslavia during the 1990s and finds a disturbing legacy. Economic
sanctions, it turns out, can unintentionally contribute to the
criminalization of the state, economy, and civil society of both the
targeted country and its immediate neighbors. By trying to evade the
sanctions, private entrepreneurs and public officials are encouraged to
disregard the rule of law. This fosters an unhealthy symbiosis among
political leaders, organized crime, and transnational smuggling
networks. These criminal networks can persist even after sanctions are
lifted, contributing to public corruption and undermining governance.
"Are Smart Sanctions Feasible?" By
Arne Tostenson and Beate Bull. World Politics 54
(April 2002): pp. 373-403.
The comprehensive United Nations sanctions on Iraq during the 1990s
were a humanitarian disaster, leading policymakers to recognize that for
any future sanctions regimen to be politically sustainable its human
costs would have to be limited. Thus was born the concept of "smart
sanctions" -- tailored measures, such as asset freezes, travel bans, and
arms embargoes, that would supposedly target an offending regime while
minimizing collateral damage to the country's population at large. The
question now is whether smart sanctions can achieve significant results
with fewer downsides than more conventional forms of economic coercion.
Arne Tostenson and Beate Bull review the evidence and conclude that the
answer is no: "Although smart sanctions may seem logically compelling
and politically attractive, such regimes are difficult to establish and
enforce because of numerous inherent operational problems and the
intricacies of the Security Council's political processes."
You are Right, Fredby Maryam Hojjat on Tue Nov 23, 2010 03:54 AM PST
like usual. continue to inform us.
If this is indeed "needlessby Sargord Pirouz on Tue Nov 23, 2010 01:34 AM PST
If this is indeed "needless to say," why are you writing a blog post on it? And how can any political action offer proof in itself?
This reads like a child's homework assignment that hasn't been anywhere near adequately studied for.
Instead of uploading two posts of garbage every day, why don't your folks at "Fred" sit down among yourselves and produce one post of real substance every other day? As it is now, all you're doing is making fools of yourselves.