Comments on: Good Reads http://kamangir.net/2007/11/06/good-reads-16/ An Iranian looking at Iran as a foreigner... Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:37:11 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: JAS http://kamangir.net/2007/11/06/good-reads-16/comment-page-1/#comment-18822 JAS Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:45:15 +0000 http://kamangir.net/2007/11/06/good-reads-16/#comment-18822 Actually, with a history of earthquakes and a large number of faults in Iran, especially today if one occurred near a large population and nuclear facilities, could be an instantaneous event far more devastating than any single military attack against that country. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/world/world_deaths.php http://www.iranian.com/Iranica/June97/Earthquake/Text2.html Actually, with a history of earthquakes and a large number of faults in Iran, especially today if one occurred near a large population and nuclear facilities, could be an instantaneous event far more devastating than any single military attack against that country.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/world/world_deaths.php
http://www.iranian.com/Iranica/June97/Earthquake/Text2.html

]]> By: Roman Kalik http://kamangir.net/2007/11/06/good-reads-16/comment-page-1/#comment-18806 Roman Kalik Sun, 11 Nov 2007 08:49:21 +0000 http://kamangir.net/2007/11/06/good-reads-16/#comment-18806 Carlos, I personally believe that the information in that old Times article was intentionally leaked by the Israeli military, something that I have suspected on several occasions with Times articles that have to do with important Israeli affairs. Ever since Rupert Murdoch bought the Times back in the 80s, it has been steadily becoming more populist and less reliable, while still retaining an old image and reputation of respect. In this, I believe that Israel has found it to be a good medium for psychological warfare on occasions. Carlos, I personally believe that the information in that old Times article was intentionally leaked by the Israeli military, something that I have suspected on several occasions with Times articles that have to do with important Israeli affairs.

Ever since Rupert Murdoch bought the Times back in the 80s, it has been steadily becoming more populist and less reliable, while still retaining an old image and reputation of respect. In this, I believe that Israel has found it to be a good medium for psychological warfare on occasions.

]]> By: Carlos http://kamangir.net/2007/11/06/good-reads-16/comment-page-1/#comment-18782 Carlos Fri, 09 Nov 2007 20:44:27 +0000 http://kamangir.net/2007/11/06/good-reads-16/#comment-18782 Kam,also you can read this at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1290331.ece Kam,also you can read this at
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1290331.ece

]]> By: Matthew http://kamangir.net/2007/11/06/good-reads-16/comment-page-1/#comment-18766 Matthew Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:44:14 +0000 http://kamangir.net/2007/11/06/good-reads-16/#comment-18766 "I object not only to his comments about other people connections with this or that country but also to his viewpoint." Ella, agreed. Kam, Today's headline in Britain (America's closest ally and eyes and ears in Tehrean--The US fears Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear installations. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2827787.ece “I object not only to his comments about other people connections with this or that country but also to his viewpoint.”

Ella, agreed.

Kam,
Today’s headline in Britain (America’s closest ally and eyes and ears in Tehrean–The US fears Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear installations.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2827787.ece

]]> By: ella http://kamangir.net/2007/11/06/good-reads-16/comment-page-1/#comment-18760 ella Thu, 08 Nov 2007 05:46:26 +0000 http://kamangir.net/2007/11/06/good-reads-16/#comment-18760 ps. Archer, after deep internal debate ;-) I retract my comments about my objections to what Mr. Athanasiadis wrote. I object not only to his comments about other people connections with this or that country but also to his viewpoint. ps. Archer, after deep internal debate ;-) I retract my comments about my objections to what Mr. Athanasiadis wrote. I object not only to his comments about other people connections with this or that country but also to his viewpoint.

]]> By: ella http://kamangir.net/2007/11/06/good-reads-16/comment-page-1/#comment-18757 ella Thu, 08 Nov 2007 05:36:23 +0000 http://kamangir.net/2007/11/06/good-reads-16/#comment-18757 Leo One of the first comments on the strike on Syria was - surprise, surprise - on Palestinian website. At that time palestinians claimed it was a strike against the weapons depository. The mention of nuclear installation came later. I assume that Jason Athanasiadis read only what Syria and/or some former CIA/government official/army member claimed. Unfortunately many people believed and do believe Syria even after the photos of the assumed nuclear installations before and after the bombardment were posted on the internet by independent website. http://www.isis-online.org/publications/SuspectSiteUpdate26October2007.pdf There are always such people, and you can not convince them that the things they believe are as far from truth as possible. It is waste of time even to try. As for his take on Dergham stake in Lebanon i.e."if Lebanon falls to the mullahs, then we're all f*cked." - <b>We</b> may not be f*cked and definitely IRI won't be, but majority of Lebanese (including many shi'a) will certainly be f*cked, and quite badly at that. One may agree or disagree with Mr. Athanasiadis views on war with Iran, but I believe that he should concentrate either on the subject of Iran, or he should stick to the subject he studies - economy and politics of Central Asia. Leo

One of the first comments on the strike on Syria was – surprise, surprise – on Palestinian website. At that time palestinians claimed it was a strike against the weapons depository. The mention of nuclear installation came later.
I assume that Jason Athanasiadis read only what Syria and/or some former CIA/government official/army member claimed. Unfortunately many people believed and do believe Syria even after the photos of the assumed nuclear installations before and after the bombardment were posted on the internet by independent website.
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/SuspectSiteUpdate26October2007.pdf
There are always such people, and you can not convince them that the things they believe are as far from truth as possible. It is waste of time even to try.

As for his take on Dergham stake in Lebanon i.e.”if Lebanon falls to the mullahs, then we’re all f*cked.” – We may not be f*cked and definitely IRI won’t be, but majority of Lebanese (including many shi’a) will certainly be f*cked, and quite badly at that.

One may agree or disagree with Mr. Athanasiadis views on war with Iran, but I believe that he should concentrate either on the subject of Iran, or he should stick to the subject he studies – economy and politics of Central Asia.

]]> By: leo http://kamangir.net/2007/11/06/good-reads-16/comment-page-1/#comment-18753 leo Wed, 07 Nov 2007 22:00:42 +0000 http://kamangir.net/2007/11/06/good-reads-16/#comment-18753 <i>"The former official said that September’s mysterious Israeli strike on Syria was a successful test of an American missile against the new Russian radar system that Moscow sold to Damascus and Tehran, ahead of a strike against Iran. According to the source, the Syrians were warned in advance through back-channels that they would be getting hit and advised to keep mum about it as it was “not personal”."</i> Hah? “The former official said that September’s mysterious Israeli strike on Syria was a successful test of an American missile against the new Russian radar system that Moscow sold to Damascus and Tehran, ahead of a strike against Iran. According to the source, the Syrians were warned in advance through back-channels that they would be getting hit and advised to keep mum about it as it was “not personal”.”

Hah?

]]> By: ella http://kamangir.net/2007/11/06/good-reads-16/comment-page-1/#comment-18748 ella Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:52:00 +0000 http://kamangir.net/2007/11/06/good-reads-16/#comment-18748 Archer I have not been interested in Iran for as long as other people are on this blog, particularly the Iranians here ;-), but for the last couple of years I did hear "USA will attack Iran, now/next week/next month/in a couple of months" Why you are so convinced that US will attack Iran? It may attack, true, but all this fuss in newspapers now is connected to the presidential campaign. The liberals talk about this so americans will say "Neo-cons were/are clueless in Iraq, now they are clueless about Iran, we will not choose them again". As for dems, although I do not follow much american politics I heard Barack Obama was talking about attacking..................Pakistan. Pakistan, Kaman, not Iran. btw. I think attacking Pakistan is a <b>really bad idea</b> too. Archer
I have not been interested in Iran for as long as other people are on this blog, particularly the Iranians here ;-), but for the last couple of years I did hear “USA will attack Iran, now/next week/next month/in a couple of months”
Why you are so convinced that US will attack Iran?
It may attack, true, but all this fuss in newspapers now is connected to the presidential campaign. The liberals talk about this so americans will say “Neo-cons were/are clueless in Iraq, now they are clueless about Iran, we will not choose them again”. As for dems, although I do not follow much american politics I heard Barack Obama was talking about attacking………………Pakistan. Pakistan, Kaman, not Iran. btw. I think attacking Pakistan is a really bad idea too.

]]> By: Matthew http://kamangir.net/2007/11/06/good-reads-16/comment-page-1/#comment-18747 Matthew Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:24:07 +0000 http://kamangir.net/2007/11/06/good-reads-16/#comment-18747 "Kamangir: Not a bad idea. Though, I think, and this is just my humble opinion, that as soon as different fractions in the American administration find the best scenario the bombing campaign will start." I, most respectfully, must disagree. “Kamangir: Not a bad idea. Though, I think, and this is just my humble opinion, that as soon as different fractions in the American administration find the best scenario the bombing campaign will start.”

I, most respectfully, must disagree.

]]> By: Frieda http://kamangir.net/2007/11/06/good-reads-16/comment-page-1/#comment-18740 Frieda Wed, 07 Nov 2007 06:51:11 +0000 http://kamangir.net/2007/11/06/good-reads-16/#comment-18740 It's been almost 4 years that people are predicting war on Iran and everyone of the rumors has been just a rumor. Remember Seymour Hersh had a "first hand" information that last summer has the time when Bush was going to attack? I am thinking, that maybe this is exactly what America wants, just leaking rumors after rumors to destabilize Iran psychologically. A great chess player, Nimzowitsch, once wrote:"The treat is stronger than execution" . An attack doesn't even have to come to fruition to have a devastating effect on the enemy! I will take this kind of war anytime! <strong>Kamangir</strong>: Not a bad idea. Though, I think, and this is just my humble opinion, that as soon as different fractions in the American administration find the best scenario the bombing campaign will start. It’s been almost 4 years that people are predicting war on Iran and everyone of the rumors has been just a rumor. Remember Seymour Hersh had a “first hand” information that last summer has the time when Bush was going to attack? I am thinking, that maybe this is exactly what America wants, just leaking rumors after rumors to destabilize Iran psychologically. A great chess player, Nimzowitsch, once wrote:”The treat is stronger than execution” . An attack doesn’t even have to come to fruition to have a devastating effect on the enemy!

I will take this kind of war anytime!

Kamangir: Not a bad idea. Though, I think, and this is just my humble opinion, that as soon as different fractions in the American administration find the best scenario the bombing campaign will start.

]]>