I only like Iranians who call themselves Persians. The rest of you can sod right off.
First they came for the Iranians
441–450 of 460 posts
Re: First they came for the Iranians
#442I only like Iranians that call themselves Persian. The rest of you can sod right off.
Re: First they came for the Iranians
#443Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://www.epochtimes.de/politik/deutschland/bundesverfassun...
That link is just a copy of this original article: http://info.kopp-verlag.de/hintergruende/deutschland/udo-ulf... . Now if you look into this Kopp Verlag, you will find that the Verfassungsschutz is keeping an eye on them because they might be spreading right-wing ideology which seeks to overthrow the constitutional structure of Germany. Interesting source for claims of unconstitutional behavior by Merkel ^^. Now I'…
"Now if you look into this Kopp Verlag, you will find that the Verfassungsschutz is keeping an eye on them because they might be spreading right-wing ideology"
In our days, being a heterosexual is already a reason for the Verfassungsschutz to keep an eye on you due to suspected right wing ideology.
Re: First they came for the Iranians
#444Earlier quoted context omitted.
What exactly in the article are you referring to? He -- a former supreme court judge of one of the German states , not of Germany -- doesn't outright claim anything illegal was done. He sort of, fairly timidly, questions it, with the flimsiest of legal analogies: the legislature has to agree to military missions, e.g. participation in UN missions, and thus (?!) something something Merkel. It's a complete non-sequitur…
http://www.epochtimes.de/politik/deutschland/bundesverfassun...
Well, you found an actual federal judge that wrote an actual paper, even if you linked to some third rate news source instead.
Here's the paper: http://bayern.de/Gutachten_Prof_Di_Fabio
Here's a rebuttal: http://verfassungsblog.de/dem-freistaat-zum-gefallen-ueber-u...
Re: First they came for the Iranians
#445Holy shit: > U.S. permanent residents (green card holders) who are outside of the United States may be barred from reentry. That's huge. I don't mean to diminish the importance of banning new immigrants and visitors on a religious basis, that's bad too. But banning people who have already legally immigrated from re-entering the country is completely nuts. There are no doubt people who have lived in this country for d…
I'm not sure if NIAC's analysis of the executive order is correct regarding this matter. I would also question if the President can ban legal permanent residences of the country from re-entering simply based on where they were borned.
I believe this would be the relevant bit:
"I hereby find that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries designated pursuant to [law], would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 30 days from the date of this order."
I don't know just how entering with a green card qualifies, but "immigrant and nonimmigrant" would seem to cover everything.
As far as actually having the power to do so, everything I've read indicates that the President has extremely broad powers to determine which noncitizens are allowed enter the country.
Re: First they came for the Iranians
#446How come this post went from "the top" to "where I cannot find it anymore"!?
Users flagged it heavily, and a moderator downweighted it.
Re: First they came for the Iranians
#447Earlier quoted context omitted.
They used to have a democracy until they tried to nationalize their oil industry. Then the CIA and British intelligence engineered a coup and installed a Shah that gave good oil prices. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution
Jesus Christ. This comes up every time. Read up on Mossadegh. He would have been overthrown regardless of what the UK or US did. He was seriously unpopular at the time. "Engineered a coup" was more like Diem in Vietnam. Tacit approval more than orchestrating something that would otherwise never would have happened.
Prove that Mossadergh wasn't popular! Mossadegh enjoyed massive popularity at different times during his political career, but his position as Prime Minister was never due to a nationwide poll (he was PM on two separate occasions). Please show however that he "would have been overthrown without the CIA engineered coup" LOL.
Also show me when a popular government was able to successfully nationalize a resource where Britain or USA had favorable terms or interests, and nothing bad happened. Even Britain's own declassified documents show that this coup was an alternative to military action.
Even when China tried to block the opium trade they got the opium wars.
Or show me where they were able to successfully take away a foreign corporation's ability to enjoy unfair tax breaks like the United Fruit Company did, leading to an overthrow of Guatemala's government.
That's what state capitalism does. Read Smedley Butler
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/115545.Smedley_D_But...
Re: First they came for the Iranians
#448Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is likely for theirbsupport of Hamas for their role in trying to expand their hegemony in the Middle East and their conflicts with Saudia Arabia and Israel. Iran is not a part of global jihad.
Does any of this sound like it supports your viewpoint? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_thought_and_legacy_o... Since his death, politics in the Islamic Republic of Iran have been "largely defined by attempts to claim Khomeini's legacy", according to at least one scholar, and "staying faithful to his ideology has been the litmus test for all political activity" there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_t…
As the current President of the Us exemplifies, there's a huge gulf between rhetoric and actions.
Personally, I have no fear of Iran or Iranians committing violent acts on US soil.
Also, if this ruling stands, it unfairly affects people from Iran who aren't even Muslim (not that it should matter). In LA, there is a very large community of Persian Jews who would be cut off from their family.
Re: First they came for the Iranians
#449Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regardless of the hijackers motives, Saudi Arabia is by far the worst country when it comes to exporting and supporting terror. Iran is an island of sanity by comparison, and there are no Shia terrorist organizations nowadays (Hezbollah are not terrorists - they don't blow up random civilians).
this is so true. simple fact in face of all those years of propaganda against iran. by no means are they some altruistic peace lovers, but considering other countries in the region, US could get much more if they would be allies since technically there are no obstacles (apart from 1979 US embassy issue, but nobody got killed, all released eventually... worse things happen, ie Behgazi and nobody cares if it serves som…
>US could get much more if they would be allies since technically there are no obstacles
It's weird, it's almost like pioneering and supplying technology (VBIED's) to kill American troops, and founding terrorist organizations to kill American allies somehow sours the relationships between the two countries.
Re: First they came for the Iranians
#450Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For Iran I have high hopes. They started the fundamentalist bullshit Please try to learn even the slightest thing about this subject before you make statements so confidently. Wahhabism started in Saudi Arabia in the early 20th century and spread due to Saudi oil money in the 30's and 40's. Meanwhile Iran was a pluralistic society right up until 1979.
Please try to learn even the slightest thing about this subject before you make statements so confidently. While there is a tiny bit of truth in your statement, Saudi Arabia changed a lot in 1979 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Mosque_seizure Saudi King Khaled however, did not react to the upheaval by cracking down on religious puritans in general, but by giving the ulama and religious conservatives more power ov…
So America shouldn't support a progressive Saudi monarchy attempting to break the control of their religious bloc, but instead support an Iranian regime dedicated to export their religious revolution. Makes sense.