Well, both sides in the Islamic internal war between chia and sunni countries hasn't stopped interfering in others political matters. They deserve each others. No one is better than the other.
Far from me to defend Iran (I dislike both in equal terms, well, maybe some more the glorious Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, since Iran has elections), but wasn't the glorious KSA that were asking the US to bomb Iran because of their nuclear arms program, as leaked in a document published by wikileaks?
Topic: Is the West gearing up to invade Russia once again? - page 30. (Read 58223 times)
Some people here obviously seem to consider these documents as fakes... 
I have already said that the Iranian financial support to the Hizbollah and other Shiite groups is a well known fact. But to say that Iran is para-dropping its elite troops to the conflicts around the world is ridiculous.
First, Hezbollah in Lebanon was founded, trained and armed by Iran. Second, you admitted that financial support of non-governmental organizations by the USA in Russia is an example of interference by the former into the internal affairs of the latter. How does all this confirm that "they [Iran] never interfere in the politics of other nations"?
Some people here obviously seem to consider these documents as fakes...
I have already said that the Iranian financial support to the Hizbollah and other Shiite groups is a well known fact. But to say that Iran is para-dropping its elite troops to the conflicts around the world is ridiculous.
Nothing like a biased perspective of the world to deny everything. Some can even arguing against the Heliocentrism.
The Iran support for Shia movements, like Hezbollah, is well documented.
Some people here obviously seem to consider these documents as fakes...
The Iran support for Shia movements, like Hezbollah, is well documented.
There is a proxy war being fought between sunni and shia countries, with Iran on one side, the Saudi Arabia/Qatar on the other.
Basically, it's what has been going on in Iraq and Syria (with the Alawites, as a shia sect, being supported by the shias).
There is a proxy war being fought between sunni and shia countries, with Iran on one side, the Saudi Arabia/Qatar on the other.
Basically, it's what has been going on in Iraq and Syria (with the Alawites, as a shia sect, being supported by the shias).
Hezbollah is not NGO, it's a political party. They even have seats in the parliament... But they also have armed wing. 
This is irrelevant to the question raised (i.e. whether Iran is interested in interfering in other countries' politics). What is relevant is that it was organized, got military training, weapons, and financial support from Iran...
Hezbollah is not NGO, it's a political party. They even have seats in the parliament... But they also have armed wing.
Many non-for-profit organizations were closed in Russia just on this basis (returning on topic now), i.e. for being financed by the U.S. government... 
Everyone knows that these NGOs actually do. We have seen their role during the Ukrianian crisis. So Russia is perfectly right in banning those NGOs.
This was not my point. Would you consider their activities as the interference by the USA into the internal affairs of Russia?
Yes. The US funded NGOs are creating ethnic hatred and other malicious activities inside Russia. I consider their activities as the interference by the USA into the internal affairs of Russia.
What about Hezbollah then? Confirm that you think Iran has nothing to do with them (no financial or whatever support)...
Many non-for-profit organizations were closed in Russia just on this basis (returning on topic now), i.e. for being financed by the U.S. government...
Everyone knows that these NGOs actually do. We have seen their role during the Ukrianian crisis. So Russia is perfectly right in banning those NGOs.
This was not my point. Would you consider their activities as the interference by the USA into the internal affairs of Russia?
Yes. The US funded NGOs are creating ethnic hatred and other malicious activities inside Russia. I consider their activities as the interference by the USA into the internal affairs of Russia.
P.S. It's interesting that USA and almost all EU countries have anti-NGO laws, which are much more hostile in comparison with this foreign agent law.
Many non-for-profit organizations were closed in Russia just on this basis (returning on topic now), i.e. for being financed by the U.S. government...
Everyone knows that these NGOs actually do. We have seen their role during the Ukrianian crisis. So Russia is perfectly right in banning those NGOs.
This was not my point. Would you consider their activities as the interference by the USA into the internal affairs of Russia?
Yes. The US funded NGOs are creating ethnic hatred and other malicious activities inside Russia. I consider their activities as the interference by the USA into the internal affairs of Russia.
Yes, indeed it is different. But could you entirely discard financial support as not meddling with the politics of other nations? If this support is provided to the rebels in Syria, would you consider this as interfering into internal affairs of this country? What about hiring mercenaries instead of sending them directly?
Iran didn't hire any mercenaries to fight in Syria. It was the US which did so.
As I may guess, you also deny that Hezbollah (which is active in Syria) was founded and funded by Iran following the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and its forces were trained and organized by a contingent of 1,500 Iranian Revolutionary Guards that arrived from Iran with permission from the Syrian government?
Another quote from here:
Quote
The movement first emerged during Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon, in which between twelve and nineteen thousand Lebanese died, most of them civilians and many of them Shiites. Militant followers of the Ayatollah Khomeini, Hezbollah’s original cadres were organized and trained by a 1,500-member contingent of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, who arrived in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley in the summer of 1982, with the permission of the Syrian government. For Iran, whose efforts to spread the Islamic revolution to the Arab world had been stymied by its war with Iraq, Hezbollah provided a means of gaining a foothold in Middle East politics
Personally, you may believe what you please, but statements that Iran has no interest in the politics of neighboring countries seem to be not grounded at all and don't fit well with the facts...
Yes.
PS: Isn't about time Iran got it's own thread?
PS: Isn't about time Iran got it's own thread?
Many non-for-profit organizations were closed in Russia just on this basis (returning on topic now), i.e. for being financed by the U.S. government...
Everyone knows that these NGOs actually do. We have seen their role during the Ukrianian crisis. So Russia is perfectly right in banning those NGOs.
This was not my point. Would you consider their activities as the interference by the USA into the internal affairs of Russia?
Yes, indeed it is different. But could you entirely discard financial support as not meddling with the politics of other nations? If this support is provided to the rebels in Syria, would you consider this as interfering into internal affairs of this country? What about hiring mercenaries instead of sending them directly?
Iran didn't hire any mercenaries to fight in Syria. It was the US which did so.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/us-trains-syrian-rebels-in-qatar-628236
Many non-for-profit organizations were closed in Russia just on this basis (returning on topic now), i.e. for being financed by the U.S. government...
Everyone knows that these NGOs actually do. We have seen their role during the Ukrianian crisis. So Russia is perfectly right in banning those NGOs.
So this doesn't fit as "interfering in the politics of other nations", right?
Now back to the Iranian military support for Syria. Do you consider the information in this article from Reuters as false? Here's the excerpt from it:
This is just one article provided as a source to the Wikipedia text you claimed as unauthentic. Heck, why should I believe you if you don't even care to substantiate your words with anything?
Now back to the Iranian military support for Syria. Do you consider the information in this article from Reuters as false? Here's the excerpt from it:
This is just one article provided as a source to the Wikipedia text you claimed as unauthentic. Heck, why should I believe you if you don't even care to substantiate your words with anything?
Giving economic support is different from sending in the mercenaries. So I think Iran's involvement is completely justified. And regarding the Reuters article, I will not believe any of it, unless they have some concrete proof, such as Iranian ID cards issued by the IRGC.
Yes, indeed it is different. But could you entirely discard financial support as not meddling with the politics of other nations? If this support is provided to the rebels in Syria, would you consider this as interfering into internal affairs of this country? What about hiring mercenaries instead of sending them directly?
Many non-for-profit organizations were closed in Russia just on this basis (returning on topic now), i.e. for being financed by the U.S. government...
So this doesn't fit as "interfering in the politics of other nations", right?
Now back to the Iranian military support for Syria. Do you consider the information in this article from Reuters as false? Here's the excerpt from it:
This is just one article provided as a source to the Wikipedia text you claimed as unauthentic. Heck, why should I believe you if you don't even care to substantiate your words with anything?
Now back to the Iranian military support for Syria. Do you consider the information in this article from Reuters as false? Here's the excerpt from it:
This is just one article provided as a source to the Wikipedia text you claimed as unauthentic. Heck, why should I believe you if you don't even care to substantiate your words with anything?
Giving economic support is different from sending in the mercenaries. So I think Iran's involvement is completely justified. And regarding the Reuters article, I will not believe any of it, unless they have some concrete proof, such as Iranian ID cards issued by the IRGC.
Are you still going to adhere to your position?
About Iran giving Syria financial support, I'll agree. But I am not going to agree with you that the revolutionary guards were sent to Syria
So this doesn't fit as "interfering in the politics of other nations", right?
Now back to the Iranian military support for Syria. Do you consider the information in this article from Reuters as false? Here's the excerpt from it:
Quote
A recently retired senior IRGC commander said Iranian forces on the ground included some Arabic speakers. He said top Quds force commanders numbered 60 to 70 at any given time.
These men were tasked with advising and training Assad's military and his commanders, he said. Revolutionary Guards directed the fighting on the instructions of the Quds Force commanders, he added.
The former IRGC commander said these personnel were also backed up by thousands of Iranian paramilitary Basij volunteer fighters as well as Arabic speakers including Shi'ites from Iraq. The former Iranian official and a Syrian opposition source also put auxiliary forces in the thousands.
The figures could not be independently verified from Syria, but the deaths of at least two IRGC commanders in Syria have been publicly reported
These men were tasked with advising and training Assad's military and his commanders, he said. Revolutionary Guards directed the fighting on the instructions of the Quds Force commanders, he added.
The former IRGC commander said these personnel were also backed up by thousands of Iranian paramilitary Basij volunteer fighters as well as Arabic speakers including Shi'ites from Iraq. The former Iranian official and a Syrian opposition source also put auxiliary forces in the thousands.
The figures could not be independently verified from Syria, but the deaths of at least two IRGC commanders in Syria have been publicly reported
This is just one article provided as a source to the Wikipedia text you claimed as unauthentic. Heck, why should I believe you if you don't even care to substantiate your words with anything?
That is an opinion, I would like to see evidences.
Anyway, one thing is to prepare for war, for defense and intimidation purposes, another completely different is having a goal to go to war.
Even Putin said that Nato is no threat.
Anyway, one thing is to prepare for war, for defense and intimidation purposes, another completely different is having a goal to go to war.
Even Putin said that Nato is no threat.
Just found an article in Russian, that basically has the same title as this thread:
The West prepares for war with Russia:
http://vpk-news.ru/news/19567
If you want to read it, use Google translate.
It's an analysis presented by the president of Academy for geopolitical problem, doctor of military science, Konstantin Sivkov, where he comments re-purposing of NATO strategic aviation for delivery of nuclear charges, and the recent NATO decision to increase the number of tactical nuclear warheads in Europe.
The West prepares for war with Russia:
http://vpk-news.ru/news/19567
If you want to read it, use Google translate.
It's an analysis presented by the president of Academy for geopolitical problem, doctor of military science, Konstantin Sivkov, where he comments re-purposing of NATO strategic aviation for delivery of nuclear charges, and the recent NATO decision to increase the number of tactical nuclear warheads in Europe.
Jump to: