Azvareth, don't call me dumb, thats why your from sweden. YOU WOULDNT KNOW....Americans intervene because of your stupid european socialist countries and because of communists. the world wouldn't have to be like this if we didnt have communist leaders and "terrorists" and socialists.

 

 

 

And dude, you know that they provoked war so we went to afghanistan. The other things you basically said were incidents and they were not major, i meant major wars.

 

 

 

a. america intervention before the first gulf war had nothing to do with western europe(well france left korea causing problems buts thats another matter0

 

 

 

b. america intervention is either to protect its own interests(for better or worse), to defend a democratic country from being overrun by a dictatorship(that calls itself communist), or in more recent events to protect ourselves from attack

 

 

 

c. socialism=good when the government is good; communism=good when the government is good; dictatorship=bad, calling yourself communist doesnt make you not a fascist a hole

 

 

 

d. the fact you actually listed terrorists along with socialism as a cause of america using military force is rather innapropriate

 

 

 

e. while you have a somewhat valid point that the lack of european action has made america look like the world police(god I hate that reputation); your presentation of it was very poor

 

 

 

f. why the hate on sweden?

Perhaps that's why the rest of the world hates the country...

 

Then again, where I am at least, we don't learn a thing about the current (Post-WWI) Middle East until very late into High School, if at all.

 

Azvareth, don't call me dumb, thats why your from sweden. YOU WOULDNT KNOW....Americans intervene because of your stupid european socialist countries and because of communists. the world wouldn't have to be like this if we didnt have communist leaders and "terrorists" and socialists.

 

If you're older than 12 I think I'm literally going to cry.

Oh, my bad! He's too tough for me.

Oh, my bad! He's too tough for me.

 

It's generally a good rule of thumb to, before replying to a thread like this, not have your head completely stuck up your [wagon]. All of your posts in this thread have been riddled with inaccuracies and dumb opinions that would suggest you are an inbred. I guess what I'm trying to say here is get the [bleep] out.

>Azvareth, don't call me dumb, thats why your from sweden

 

>thats why your from sweden

 

>your

Oh, my bad! He's too tough for me.

 

 

 

Who is half curious about who that was said about?

 

 

 

On topic

 

 

 

do we have any recent news on this? The last thing I heard was that mousavi was calling for a march today

A few people like that give Americans a bad name, and it might just be because they are more vocal on the Internet that everyone thinks Americans are like that.

 

 

 

I still don't think bringing up the US relations to this situation as being "US centric" in this thread. There are valid causes for mentioning the US in relation to the Iran possible revolution. The people in the street aren't chanting for Nicolas Sarkozy or Chancellor Merkel, they are chanting for Obama to "give them their freedom". There is a reason for this, even though wars have pretty much bankrupt the US it still has one of the best military in the world, and a possibility of intervention. Of course as mentioned before, there are reasons why we shouldn't, and wont (hopefully).

 

 

 

Does anyone know if Google is going to change their logo?

[hide=]

There is a reason for this, even though wars have pretty much bankrupt the US it still has one of the best military in the world, and a possibility of intervention. Of course as mentioned before, there are reasons why we shouldn't, and wont (hopefully).

 

 

 

Does anyone know if Google is going to change their logo?

[/hide]

 

 

 

Im going to avoid talking about other americans for everyone benefit but I will say it is still the best military in the world(at least until china gets enough top end technology) /ego

 

 

 

its horribly unlikely we will intervene, obama has done a good job of avoiding inflamation of the situation. Secondly, there is no forseable way to intervene without causing bigger problems.

 

 

 

I really hope they do

I just realized something. If we help them, they won't be known as a strong and proud country that overthrew an oppressive government, they'll be remembered as the lost cause that got bailed out by the U.S. Since we wouldn't ALWAYS be around to help them, then some power hungry dictator would see his opportunity to take power. It's important that they aren't seen as a weak country.

 

do we have any recent news on this? The last thing I heard was that mousavi was calling for a march today

 

It's like 5:40 AM there right now, so we probably won't hear anything new for another 4 hours or so. There's rumours going around of some big anti-protest thing "planned for tomorrow" though which sounds pretty ominous.

 

 

 

From @TehranBureau:

 

I have now received e-mails from totally trustworthy sources within Iran that many Sepaah commanders [sepaph is IRGC] have been arrested, because they are opposed to what is going on and in particular to the plan for tomorrow. ['plan for tomorrow' not sure yet]

 

Here's hoping for the best.

Here's hoping for the best.

 

 

 

Indeed, this is one of those situations where if it goes full revolution it could turn out quite well for the iranian people in the long term.

News from today on friday morning (they are gmt +7)

 

 

 

[hide=]18th of June - The protests show no signs of slowing down, and the fact that the government has been less violent so far and concentrating on discrediting the protesters instead shows that they are losing grip and painfully aware of all the attention given to what is happening right now, CNN notwithstanding. It's also a worrying step, because the moment they start feeling they are losing grip even more is the moment where they might begin to unleash brutal waves of violence again, much worse than what we've seen so far.

 

 

 

- Iran Human Rights reports that today alone hundreds of members of the opposition and known Reformists have been arrested, some of them tortured in the basements of government buildings.

 

 

 

- There is a (so far) quiet march going on, where all the protesters are dressed in black and mourning those who have died so far. The crowds are estimated to be as big as they have been for the last few days, so that puts them between 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 in Tehran alone.

 

 

 

- Khameini has agreed to a recount of 600 out of the thousands of ballot boxes, but this has been rejected by the opposition, who says that these elections are to be declared null and void, and that new elections have to be rescheduled. Khameini in return rejected this. There are reports that Mousavi went as far as saying that Khameini does not have authority to preside over the state of Iran anymore.

 

 

 

- As a sign of growing tension in the governmental apparatus, fist-fights were said to have broken out in Parliament over who to support, but it seems that the Parliament will ultimately back Ahmadinejad and Khameini to the end. The Interior Ministry has ordered a police investigation into the massacre of 7 civilians by a Basij firing in a crowd. There are also reports of police officers deserting their posts and joining the protesters, while others use their position in the police force as a way to warn protesters from incoming arrests or crack downs. The army is still silent. There are reports that the man who leaked results of the election giving Khatami winner and Ahmadinejad as losing in third position has been killed in a car "accident".

 

 

 

- The State TV has been turned into a full-blown anti-Revolution machine, constantly hammering on how evil the "thugs" who are smashing around private property are. Problem is that those thugs are in fact Basij dressed in green, but IRIB is reporting it as pro-Moussavi supporters. They have also been showing documentaries about the evils of the internet and how the US, UK and Israel are behind the protests. State Radio is not much better, with talking heads calling for the death of those evil thugs destabilizing the country at the behest of external forces. They have also issued false reports that Moussavi was "condeming the rioters".

 

 

 

- The Government has closed Iran to all foreign communication and coverage, according to many reports. It would also seem that the Iranian government has opened an account in the name of Ayatollah Khameini on Twitter. There are reports that senior aides to all reformist candidates have been arrested, but it has yet to be corroborated and this is not the first time we hear such reports.

 

 

 

- According to Reuters, Iranian prosecutors have warned of the death penalty for the rioters who are involved in violence. Islamic cleric have warned that not going to Friday's prayer service makes you worthy of the death penalty. It is unclear yet what isn't worthy of death penalty at this point if you protest against the regime.

 

 

 

- All the violence reported over Iran is now exclusively done by the Basij, Ansar and, if the rumours are true, Hizbullah and Hamas. The police have completely stopped participating in the repression of the population, and both the Army and IRG are standing still and not doing anything. This is good news, but the Basij are sadly not reducing the level of violence they are unleashing on the population, beating up everyone they can get their hands on. It continued all throughout the night and during the day, but due to the mass of people involved it seems that they are restraining themselves when it comes to the mass rallies, preferring to pick isolated targets.

 

 

 

- Universities have cancelled all exams all over the country, and a long list of rebel students was given to all universities and they have to report the students, who are to be arrested on sight.

 

 

 

- There have been a few confirmed cases of people threatened inside the United States for providing proxies for the revolution. Their details were available on the internet so they were passed around pro-Government forces. If you are helping this revolution, be careful to do so as anonymously as you can. It doesn't mean you are risking your life, but it could potentially result in harrassment or vandalism.

 

 

 

19th of June - The day has yet to begin in Iran as I write this (19pm EST), but today looks to be by far the defining moment of this week. Supreme Leader Khameini has called for Friday Prayers where he will be present. There are fears that the IRG has been called in support and that they will have a massive presence, which could possibly be a post-prayers trap. On the other hand, not attending makes the reformists enemies of Islam and worthy of the death penalty according to Khameini. Iranian prosecutors have also warned protesters that violence might be punished with the death penalty, according to Reuters. Supporters of Khameini are expected to flood Tehran from all corners of Iran on Friday, so big clashes are expected. As explained above, details are presently unclear as to what the protesters have planned for tomorrow.

 

 

 

- As the Basij, they are cracking down on the population as ever, roaming the streets, vandalizing both pro and anti-Mousavi targets while pretending to be pro-Mousavi forces and trying to crack down on all dissenters.

 

 

 

The revolution lives on. Long live the revolution![/hide]

I just realized something. If we help them, they won't be known as a strong and proud country that overthrew an oppressive government, they'll be remembered as the lost cause that got bailed out by the U.S. Since we wouldn't ALWAYS be around to help them, then some power hungry dictator would see his opportunity to take power. It's important that they aren't seen as a weak country.

 

What...?

 

 

 

I'll rather the US bomb down government buildings than me with a shovel. Whatever gets the job done.

I just realized something. If we help them, they won't be known as a strong and proud country that overthrew an oppressive government, they'll be remembered as the lost cause that got bailed out by the U.S. Since we wouldn't ALWAYS be around to help them, then some power hungry dictator would see his opportunity to take power. It's important that they aren't seen as a weak country.

 

What...?

 

 

 

I'll rather the US bomb down government buildings than me with a shovel. Whatever gets the job done.

 

 

 

Its best for a country to create its own independence, especially in an area known for instability.

Does anyone know if Google is going to change their logo?

 

I'm really doubting it. I mean, I would love it if they did but it would be a way too political move for Google to do. It also has the potential for them to be boycotted by millions of people in the future. Finally, if they do act here, they will forever be expected to act in future events. "Google, do a logo for Rwanda's farmers under oppression!" "Google, do a logo for Taiwan!" "Google, why didn't you do a logo for the Equatorial Guinea Civil War... you did one for Iran!!!" #-o

 

 

 

Other websites have though, http://thepiratebay.org/ is the most obvious. Fark has a comically small green ribbon attached to its logo now too :

 

 

 

 

 

*EDIT* Haha, it appears Google gave them a simple gesture. Google just added Persian to the list of languages it can translate to English: http://translate.google.com/#

 

Notice how its not even listed in the JPEG, you have to look at the drop down menu. This isn't so much a sign that Google supports one side or the other, but there is a huge increase in Persian webtraffic and online postings so Google hastily gave us a tool to translate it. Thanks guys ;)

Didn't read the whole of the thread, so sorry if I just come barging in with old or irrelevant information...

 

 

 

A Belgian journalist who is in Iran at the moment blogged a story about Iran that really hit a nerve with me, about a young, highly intelligent woman (she was in the top 50 for the entrance test to work at the government... a test taken by thousands) who has been sacked from the Iranian Ministry for wearing nail polish. She invited the journalist in her house and talked to her about the current situation and her life. Only minutes after the journalist had left, the Iranian police raided her house... She still went back to the journalist's hotel to share this information. So brave.

 

 

 

I found this concise and moving overview of the situation on Youtube:

 

 

 

 

Interesting website/forum collecting all information:

 

http://iran.whyweprotest.net/

 

 

 

Azvareth, don't call me dumb, thats why your from sweden. YOU WOULDNT KNOW....Americans intervene because of your stupid european socialist countries and because of communists. the world wouldn't have to be like this if we didnt have communist leaders and "terrorists" and socialists.

 

 

 

And dude, you know that they provoked war so we went to afghanistan. The other things you basically said were incidents and they were not major, i meant major wars.

 

 

 

That's a very ignorant statement to make. You are a prime example of the kind of cancer that is continuing to corrupt the US and its politics. That's why a lot of people have ill sentiments toward the US.

The dilemma in Ahmadinejad's head: "Do I let the citizens of my country make a fool of me by letting them uncover the rigged elections, putting me out of office, and not letting Iran's economy go down the drain, or do I allow my country to be turned upside down, economy turned to rubbish, and hundreds more to die from the social unrest, but keep the little amount of dignity I have. I'll choose the latter."

In the first stanzas of his 90 minute public speech today, an event usually reserved only for the anniversary of the revolution or high holy days, Irans Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei, offered up the scapegoat for his nations tumult:

 

 

 

Our youth are in a materialistic world

 

 

 

In a time of turmoil

 

 

 

They don't know what to do,

 

 

 

They need to understand spirituality,

 

 

 

They need to get back to spirituality,

 

 

 

But they don't know how

 

 

 

I would like to speak about the issue of the election which is the important issue in our country

 

 

 

The youngsters in our country showed especially,

 

 

 

that they are partaking in the political process since the beginning of the revolution.

 

 

 

Now we'll see the same responsibilities from them that we saw during the Iraqi Aggression War...

 

 

 

Okay. Take a step back and ponder that reference to the Iran-Iraq war of 1980 to 1988, during which Iran utilized a tactic of child soldiers sent into certain martyrdom. From Wikipedia:

 

 

 

A tactic used in this advance noted throughout the world was the encouragment of heroism among young Iranian basij volunteers who sought martyrdom in human wave attacks on Iraqi positions. The volunteers were inspired before battle by tales of Ashura, the Battle of Karbala, and the supreme glory of martyrdom, and sometimes by an actor (usually a more mature soldier), playing the part of Imam Hossein himself riding a white horse, galloping along the lines, providing the child soldiers a vision of "the hero who would lead them into their fateful battle before they met their God."

 

 

 

In the Basra offensive, or Operation Ramadan five human-wave attacks were met with withering fire from the Iraqis. The boy-soldiers of Iran were particularly hard-hit, especially since they volunteered to run intominefields, in order to clear the way for the Iranian soldiers behind them. The Iranians were also hard-hit by the employment of chemical weapons and mustard gas by the Iraqis.

 

 

 

It cost Iran an estimated 1 million casualties, killed or wounded, and Iranians continue to suffer and die as a consequence of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. Iraqi casualties are estimated at 250,000-500,000 killed or wounded.

 

 

 

The Supreme Leader didnt say it outright (and therefore what he really meant is subject to interpretation and much disagreement), but from a psychohistorical perspective, his call upon the youth to assume the same responsibilities of that 1980s adventure in ritual human sacrifice of the nations own young men came pretty close to saying: Oh, youth of Iran. Get spiritual (read: off the streets of protest) or be sacrificed as you were two decades ago.

 

 

 

But then, the Supreme Leader blinked, and started to backpedal, praising endearing qualities among these youth that, just a minute ago, had been portrayed as lost, materialist and without spirituality:

 

 

 

If our young didn't have any hope,

 

 

 

They wouldn't partake in the election

 

 

 

If they didn't feel freedom, they wouldn't vote.

 

 

 

Faith in the system has been shown by the massive participation.

 

 

 

So, the speech began with a veiled threat to the nations youth, but followed with some hedging. Okay, everybody be good little boys so we dont have to send you out to test the land mines.

 

 

 

The next section of the speech contained less veiled threats against opposition political leaders:

 

 

 

...political party leaders should be very careful about what they say and do

 

 

 

if they do anything extremist, their radical moves will moves will take them to where it won't be solvable

 

 

 

if political elite want to fix someone at the cost of another thing

 

 

 

to BREAK the law

 

 

 

they would be responsible for the bloodshed

 

 

 

In other words, bloodshed is the only response this old man can think of when it comes to peaceful street protests. The question for him seems not to be to repress or not to repress. Repression is all he knows in this kind of a situation. Rather, he is obsessed upon who gets blamed for it, both in the immediate news cycles, and by history.

 

 

 

For a man who claims to be against the West, he certainly showed today that his instincts in a moment of crisis are nearly identical to those of George W. Bush and his doctrine of a "war on terror" than of any Eastern or original alternative. Here, Khamenei essentially says that there are terrorists who use demonstrations as a cover for their activities, and therefore anybody who calls a demonstration is responsible for such terrorism:

 

 

 

if after every election those who haven't gotten votes start to have street camps and invite their followers to come to the streets,

 

 

 

And the winners' followers take their followers to the streets,

 

 

 

Then why did we hold elections to begin with?...

 

 

 

For terrorists it is different

 

 

 

infiltrating terrorist will hide behind these people.

 

 

 

if you make covers for them, then who's responsible?

 

 

 

people have been killed from ordinary people and the Baseej

 

 

 

Who's responsible?

 

 

 

But then, for the second time in the speech, he steps back from the brink, acknowledging that innocents have been caught in the repression:

 

 

 

attack at universities,

 

 

 

Good students were beaten up

 

 

 

not the ones who were involved in riots.

 

 

 

Some days ago, I noted that the regime seemed caught between two conflicting options on how to deal with the unrest and that by trying to do both it was doing neither very well. By calling for a partial recount of last Friday's vote, it adopted toward the Mexican model of 2006, which successfully tired out a post-electoral movement against a mammoth electoral fraud with legalistic gymnastics, suckering the opposition into playing by a fixed set of rules. But the Supreme Leader's words today, hinting at violence and repression more arrests, beatings, killings, torture and censorship, which is itself a form of violence tilted more toward the Chinese model Tienanmen Square of 1989.

 

 

 

Although the censorship part of the Chinese model has utterly failed in Iran, thanks to the citizen media from below, it seems in this speech that the regime has now rejected the Mexican model - he didn't mention the partial recount at all - and has opted for threats of repression and ritual sacrifice in the hope it will cause the leaders to back down and cancel the protests. (In fact, one of the best things that could happen would be if the leaders Mousavi et al chickened out; a vacuum would be created for new, non-electoral, leadership to emerge, but Khamenei is in such an obvious position of weakness that thats not going to happen, at least not right away: Mousavi will, instead of hiding, pounce.)

 

 

 

Toward the end of the speech, the Supreme Leader reiterated:

 

 

 

I want both sides to put an end to this

 

 

 

then the responsibility of the consequences should be shouldered by those who aren't putting an end to it.

 

 

 

by thinking that by turning out onto the streets that you can pressure the officials your demands is wrong.

 

 

 

In sum: To the opposition political leaders, back down, or Ill kill many of our youths, and our propaganda machine will blame you for it.

 

I'll repeat. The speech today makes evident that the Supreme Leader is speaking from a profound position of weakness. He cant control the latter part of his threat: the blame and infamy for a massacre will fall on him and his regime alone. No opposition leader is going to swallow in fear thinking that he would be blamed by the people and by history for state repression against peaceful marchers. And the former part to engage in more brutal and widespread violent repression than before depends upon his being able to mobilize the Iranian Armed Forces, who have so far chosen to decline such disgrace upon them (if anything, the Army has protected demonstrators from the Basij militias in a few instances already reported).

 

 

 

I dont know how the Supreme Leader wiggles out of the corner he has just painted himself into. The demonstrations aren't going to stop. Tomorrow may see the largest yet. He either has to convince the Armed Forces to send young soldiers to massacre the youth of a young nation, or he cant carry out the threats he has just made. More low intensity warfare of the kind waged so far is only going to increase the ranks of the resistance and lose him the population in the middle. And I think its a safe bet that Mousavi and Rafsanjani and the others he was trying to convince to back down also see that he is speaking from a position of weakness, and aren't going to be cowed.

 

I frankly expected to hear a more savvy Supreme Leader than the doddering fool we heard from today, caught in a world that has already passed him by, without a clue of what to do next.

 

 

 

Many peoples reactions to his speech were along the lines of oh no, this doesnt look good, here comes trouble. But it is not at all clear that this man has the power any more to deploy sufficient force to quell a revolt of millions.

 

 

 

Who holds the cards right now in the correlation of forces? The Irani Armed Forces, which has so far not signed up for repressive duty against its own people. Unless the Supreme Leader has them up his sleeve and I doubt very much that he does look for Saturdays marches to be larger than any before in this great game of chicken. Does the Supreme Leader then try to carry out his veiled threats with only those Revolutionary Guards and militia members that are loyal to him? Their numbers arent sufficient to do anything but cause enough blood to shock the world yet without scaring off the resistance. Or does he blink, keep the batons and guns in the holsters, and prove, 24 hours later, that all his veiled threats were more veil than threat?

 

 

 

Saturday is going to be another big important date in history. My guess is that Khamenei's blundering all-turban-no-cattle (in the comments section, Erik Siegrist corrects; "all-turban-no-camel") attempt to defuse the mega-marches planned for tomorrow only succeeded in making them larger.

 

 

 

Update: The mega-march in Tehran is now CONFIRMED for 4 p.m. (7:30 a.m. ET) at Enghelab Square.

 

 

 

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefie ... -war-youth

why does everyone have to reference bush, seriously hes not president anymorethankfully

 

 

 

It seems like the Iranian government can't figure out any options and may try to use the military to put down the protestors.

Even during subdued times, Iranians tend to have oversize expectations of the United States, and what it can or cannot do for their troubled nation. I remember riding a bus through central Tehran last summer, surprised at how openly a young woman expressed her desperation with the grim state of Iranian politics: Let the Americans come, she said loudly. "Let them sort things out for us once and for all." The women's section, at the back of the bus of course, took her remark casually, and some nodded.

 

 

 

This lingering belief among Iranians that America has some unique control over their fate is a legacy of the two nations' tangled past. Beginning with the American coup that overthrew Iran's democratically elected prime minister, Mohammed Mosaddeq, in 1953, through to Jimmy Carter's tepid response to the revolutionary crowds that helped bring down the shah's regime in 1979, both U.S. action and inaction are considered equally powerful among most Iranians.

 

 

 

Given this history, Iranians have looked curiously to Washington in recent days, eager to see what America's new president has to say about Ahmadinejad's fraudulent re-election and the furious protests it has unleashed. The years I've spent living in Iran, both under President Ahmadinejad and his more moderate predecessor, led me to expect that most people would be desperate for a nod from America. Until last week, Iranian student leaders often insisted that they didn't have the power to meaningfully oppose their government from the inside. They said they needed the West to pressure the mullahs as well, in hopes that the regime would eventually feel squeezed on all sides.

 

 

 

But in conversations with friends and relatives in Tehran this week, I've heard the opposite of what I had expected: a resounding belief that this time the United States should keep out. One of my cousins, a woman in her mid-30s who has been attending the daily protests along with the rest of her family, viewed the situation pragmatically. The U.S. shouldn't interfere, because a loud condemnation isn't going to affect Iranian domestic politics one way or the other. If the supreme leader decides to crackdown on the protests and Ahmadinejad stays in power, then negotiations with the United States might improve our lives.

 

 

 

I heard these sentiments, remarkably thoughtful for such a passionate moment, echoed from many quarters. President Barack Obama's outreach to Iran, and his offer of a mutually respectful dialogue, has raised the possibility of better relations for the first time in years, and many Iranians worry that a false step might jeopardize that prospect altogether. A friend of mine who studies public relations in Tehran noted that other American allies in the Gulf, Arab dictatorships with no pretence of democracy, are thriving economically. In the end, a dictatorship that doesn't face U.S. sanctions is better off than one that does, she said. Now that after 30 years it seems that we have a chance to negotiate with America, it would be a shame if we lost the chance.

 

 

 

Other friends I spoke with cited various reasons why the United States should maintain its discrete posture. If Obama's position until now has been to respect Iran, then he really has no choice but to watch first how things unfold. Mousavi hasn't produced any facts yet, no one has produced evidence of fraud, said my friend Ali, a 40-year-old photographer. That's what is needed before Obama takes a major stand.

 

 

 

My older relatives fretted particularly that any real criticism by the United States would be used as a pretext by Ahmadinejad to blame the protests on outside enemies, a reflexive response for the president when dealing with even housing inflation and the rising price of tomatoes. It's better for Obama to stay out of this. Given what happened with Bush in Florida, Ahmadinejad can always claim the United States is in no position to lecture anyone about fair elections, my aunt noted.

 

 

 

Though it seems most Iranians are taking such a measured view of American involvement, there are still some who feel that both the United States and the world must take a stand. A girlfriend of mine emailed to complain bitterly about what she considers America's cowardly silence. Why is it with a country like North Korea, the world shouts that the dictator is hated by his people, but when it comes to us, the West is diplomatic? The world must help us today. People are shouting and telling the world what is going on here, and the world should help us. People are tired and now we need the world's help.

 

 

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... :blogunit1

As a half persian/half swedish, I can speak for my father's side that they hate the current iran government. Ayatollah Khaminei is bat [cabbage] insane and the laws/government there is completely messed up.

 

 

 

By the way, Anon declared war on Ahmadinejad and the Iran government. GG

As a half persian/half swedish, I can speak for my father's side that they hate the current iran government. Ayatollah Khaminei is bat [cabbage] insane and the laws/government there is completely messed up.

 

 

 

By the way, Anon declared war on Ahmadinejad and the Iran government. GG

 

Hack the Iranian internal network to launch their nukes upon themselves. Go Anon!

Can i ask what/who Anon is?