Abii
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 6,690
- Reaction score
- -13
- Country
- Location
Good, thanks man. Surprised you still remember me haha. It's been a while.
Iranian Chill Thread
- Thread starter SOHEIL
- Start date
vsdoc
BANNED
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Messages
- 5,171
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
So did you revert eventually or are you still a statistical Muslim?
What about the Bullet? Did you buy one?
Also what happened to Shahin Vatani, Iranzamin, Surenas and the other Iranian oldies here?
Abii
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 6,690
- Reaction score
- -13
- Country
- Location
No, but if you remember I told you about my parent's Zoroastrian friend. She's still after me and wants to know why I haven't contacted her for reading material lol.So did you revert eventually or are you still a statistical Muslim?
What about the Bullet? Did you buy one?
Also what happened to Shahin Vatani, Iranzamin, Surenas and the other Iranian oldies here?
I also lost interest in classic motorcycles. Half the reason is the pain in the *** licensing procedures here. I went and did my written motorcycle exam and passed it no problem, but then I had to go book a spot for a training class and that's where things stopped for me. You have to find time for that, then pay like 600 dollars for the class, then go book the actual exam. To do the actual exam I'd have to go find someone with a motorcycle license that's willing to ride a bike to the registry, b/c I wouldn't be able to ride it there myself. Just too much headache and I don't have time for it right now.
vsdoc
BANNED
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Messages
- 5,171
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
So do you see any changes happening/picking up speed in Iran now that you and the US are friends again?
Or is the Syria stuff the big thing now?
Abii
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 6,690
- Reaction score
- -13
- Country
- Location
Iran and the US are far from friends, but things have definitely calmed down. Before, a war wasn't out of the question, now it's not even a talking point. As far as changes are concerned, the Arabs in charge will keep on poisoning the country with their arab venom. But normal people will have more breathing room in the coming years as sanctions slowly ease off.
Aramagedon
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 8,801
- Reaction score
- -13
- Country
- Location
vsdoc
BANNED
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Messages
- 5,171
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
But 3 years ago (its been that long .....) you were speaking about the Arabs going and a not-insignificant chunk of the populace reverting openly/coming out in the open and practicing Zoroastrianism.
Not yet?
Guys did you see this Jeremy Courbyn guy in UK.
Jeremy Corbyn hails huge mandate as he sets out leftwing agenda | Politics | The Guardian
Labor party is going to be fun to watch next year. He looks like a decent guy. I don't know much about him but it seems he was against Iraq war and demands apology and supports Palestinians ... He seems to fit in Iran very well
Lets see if Labor wins and he sits in number 10!
Is there any member from UK that can give insight.
Jeremy Corbyn hails huge mandate as he sets out leftwing agenda | Politics | The Guardian
Labor party is going to be fun to watch next year. He looks like a decent guy. I don't know much about him but it seems he was against Iraq war and demands apology and supports Palestinians ... He seems to fit in Iran very well
Lets see if Labor wins and he sits in number 10! Is there any member from UK that can give insight.
Madali
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2015
- Messages
- 2,717
- Reaction score
- 23
- Country
- Location
King Salman visiting one of the Iranian wounded in KSA crane incident. That's nice of him, but haha, look how fast he wants to get out of there...he probably thought he would get contaminated by the Farsi Magi Virus.
Be nazar miad shash dareh!
Akheh in che joor visite!
Madali
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2015
- Messages
- 2,717
- Reaction score
- 23
- Country
- Location
Be nazar miad shash dareh!
Haha.As ghasresh omade birun, vah omade tu adamhaye mamuli. Sari mikhad bargardeh tu ghasre talayish.
lastofthepatriots
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2015
- Messages
- 11,900
- Reaction score
- -13
- Country
- Location
Indian baadbahkt aast. 
From Fararu: سیاستمدار مخالف اسرائیل رهبر حزب کارگر انگلیس شد
"کوربین گیاهخوار است و الکل نمی‌نوشد، معمولا کت و شلوار و کراوات نمی‌پوشد، با صندل و کیفی روی شانه با دوچرخه و اتوبوس به پارلمان می‌رود، ماشین ندارد، "در خانه‌ای معمولی در محله‌ای معمولی زندگی می‌کند و هر سال پس از اعلام هزینه‌های نمایندگان پارلمان، نام او در بین نمایندگانی است که کمترین هزینه را داشته‌اند
seems to be a natural fit in Iran! Finally we got a party leader of our choice in UK!
I like this guy already! Need to read more about him....Need to get back to my work ... too much PDF is preventing me from real WORD!
Daneshmand
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2014
- Messages
- 3,109
- Reaction score
- 43
- Country
- Location
Good article worth the read about "Vela Incident" and its ongoing effects on Iran-US relations: Flash from the past: Why an apparent Israeli nuclear test in 1979 matters today | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
A portion from the article:
"
The thought that Israeli nuclear weapons could be a catalyst for a proliferation breakout in the region induced the UN General Assembly, on December 11, 1979, to adopt a resolution entitled “Israeli Nuclear Armament” in which it said that “the development of nuclear capability by Israel would further aggravate the already dangerous situation in the region and further threaten international peace and security.” The General Assembly then requested the Secretary-General, with the assistance of qualified experts, to prepare a study on Israeli nuclear armament. Accordingly, the Secretary-General appointed an international group of five scholars, denoted the “Group of Experts,” who completed and submitted their results on June 19, 1981. The study concluded that “the possession of nuclear weapons by Israel would be a seriously destabilizing factor in the already tense situation prevailing in the Middle East, in addition to being a serious danger to the cause of non-proliferation in general.” The study added that adherence by Israel to a nuclear-weapon free zone in the Middle East with accession to the NPT would “avoid the danger of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.”
The report was completed less than two weeks after Israel’s attack on an Iraqi nuclear reactor. Still to come was an Israeli attack on a fledgling secret reactor site in Syria in 2007 and the Iran situation, showing that proliferation in the region was proceeding apace. The United States took no action in response to the UN report, which was about the dangers of nuclear weapons in the hands of an ally in the Middle East.
The report did not envision how Middle East politics would change in the following years—mainly because of the rise of Iran’s influence and power, aided by the ill-conceived US war with Iraq. The Arab monarchies, particularly the Saudis, are now more afraid of Iran and its nuclear potential than they are of Israel’s nuclear weapons. The core arguments for stopping Iran’s nuclear program could be said to be encapsulated in the quoted statements from the report of the Group of Experts, with “Israel” replaced by “Iran.”
The US response to those statements as applied to Israel was a virtual yawn, even though Israel had already violated the Limited Test Ban Treaty. Applying those statements to Iran, however—especially when coupled to Israel’s perception of an existential Iranian nuclear threat—galvanized the United States into organizing for action. The result was the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—popularly referred to as “the Iran agreement”—a time-limited agreement significantly curtailing Iran’s nuclear program and its ability to quickly develop nuclear weapons. This agreement, which does not have the status of a treaty, will be backed up by the threat of the return of any sanctions on Iran that will have been removed via implementation of the agreement. The threat of military action also hovers in the background.
Why the United States should admit that Israel and South Africa violated the Limited Test Ban Treaty. The US dilemma is understandable. Israel’s half-century of refusing to publicly admit the existence of its nuclear arsenal would present difficulties for the bilateral relationship, if the United States were to unilaterally declare not only its knowledge of Israel’s weapons, but its knowledge of Israel’s violation of the Limited Test Ban Treaty.
But must the United States accept forever a position of silence—one that diminishes US credibility as a champion of international arms control agreements? It may be that admitting the existence of Israel’s nuclear arsenal would present some additional problems for regional peace and politics in the Middle East today, but would they be as dire as suggested by the Group of Experts in 1981? Thirty-six years have passed since the (A) 747 event, and there is widespread understanding—including among Israel’s adversaries in the Middle East—that Israel has amassed a significant nuclear arsenal (believed to range from 80-200 warheads). So it isn’t the case that an admission of the arsenal by Israel or the United States would be treated as a revelation of heretofore-unknown facts. Arab leaders understand that their security is enhanced by the NPT and would suffer were they to abandon the treaty. And the lesson of sanctions for Iran is now out there for potential proliferators to see. Thus, rhetoric aside, the admission by Israel or the United States of Israel’s nuclear weapons status is unlikely to cause a political tsunami in the United Nations, or sweep aside the NPT, or otherwise cause a move by a group of countries to leave that treaty.
Continuing to hide Israel’s testing violation is a direct counter to the US claim that it stands for the rule of law and implies that the United States cannot be counted on to defend treaties if they are violated by Israel. This failure fosters cynicism about the seriousness of the United States and its allies on the restraining of nuclear weapons. In the wake of the Iran agreement, it underscores concerns that the United States has double standards on arms control when Israel is involved.
Just as it is appropriate to demand that Iran be transparent about its nuclear history in relation to its NPT violations, it is appropriate to demand that Israel and South Africa be transparent regarding their activities surrounding the violation of the Limited Test Ban Treaty. An investigation by the United Nations (via the International Atomic Energy Agency) of the Vela event with the full cooperation of its members would be an appropriate step toward resolving this issue. Surely, a credible claim of a violation of the LTBT deserves no less, especially at a time when nuclear sensitivities in the Middle East and elsewhere have reached such a high level.
The question is: What should the international community do about Israel’s and South Africa’s violation? Perhaps some would argue that a violation of a nuclear arms control treaty occurring decades ago should be treated as if a statute of limitations applies. But that violation has undoubtedly aided the development of sophisticated nuclear weapons that can murder millions. There should be no statute of limitations for any violation of international law that has resulted or can result in a holocaust. The ultimate decision on sanctions for the violation should be left to the United Nations.
In any case, if the US government’s silence and cover-up of Israel’s violation of the Limited Test Ban Treaty continues, and the arms control and nonproliferation community acquiesces in it, what shall we make of all the grand-sounding rhetoric we have heard for more than four decades about the importance of international nuclear arms control treaties?
"
A portion from the article:
"
The thought that Israeli nuclear weapons could be a catalyst for a proliferation breakout in the region induced the UN General Assembly, on December 11, 1979, to adopt a resolution entitled “Israeli Nuclear Armament” in which it said that “the development of nuclear capability by Israel would further aggravate the already dangerous situation in the region and further threaten international peace and security.” The General Assembly then requested the Secretary-General, with the assistance of qualified experts, to prepare a study on Israeli nuclear armament. Accordingly, the Secretary-General appointed an international group of five scholars, denoted the “Group of Experts,” who completed and submitted their results on June 19, 1981. The study concluded that “the possession of nuclear weapons by Israel would be a seriously destabilizing factor in the already tense situation prevailing in the Middle East, in addition to being a serious danger to the cause of non-proliferation in general.” The study added that adherence by Israel to a nuclear-weapon free zone in the Middle East with accession to the NPT would “avoid the danger of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.”
The report was completed less than two weeks after Israel’s attack on an Iraqi nuclear reactor. Still to come was an Israeli attack on a fledgling secret reactor site in Syria in 2007 and the Iran situation, showing that proliferation in the region was proceeding apace. The United States took no action in response to the UN report, which was about the dangers of nuclear weapons in the hands of an ally in the Middle East.
The report did not envision how Middle East politics would change in the following years—mainly because of the rise of Iran’s influence and power, aided by the ill-conceived US war with Iraq. The Arab monarchies, particularly the Saudis, are now more afraid of Iran and its nuclear potential than they are of Israel’s nuclear weapons. The core arguments for stopping Iran’s nuclear program could be said to be encapsulated in the quoted statements from the report of the Group of Experts, with “Israel” replaced by “Iran.”
The US response to those statements as applied to Israel was a virtual yawn, even though Israel had already violated the Limited Test Ban Treaty. Applying those statements to Iran, however—especially when coupled to Israel’s perception of an existential Iranian nuclear threat—galvanized the United States into organizing for action. The result was the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—popularly referred to as “the Iran agreement”—a time-limited agreement significantly curtailing Iran’s nuclear program and its ability to quickly develop nuclear weapons. This agreement, which does not have the status of a treaty, will be backed up by the threat of the return of any sanctions on Iran that will have been removed via implementation of the agreement. The threat of military action also hovers in the background.
Why the United States should admit that Israel and South Africa violated the Limited Test Ban Treaty. The US dilemma is understandable. Israel’s half-century of refusing to publicly admit the existence of its nuclear arsenal would present difficulties for the bilateral relationship, if the United States were to unilaterally declare not only its knowledge of Israel’s weapons, but its knowledge of Israel’s violation of the Limited Test Ban Treaty.
But must the United States accept forever a position of silence—one that diminishes US credibility as a champion of international arms control agreements? It may be that admitting the existence of Israel’s nuclear arsenal would present some additional problems for regional peace and politics in the Middle East today, but would they be as dire as suggested by the Group of Experts in 1981? Thirty-six years have passed since the (A) 747 event, and there is widespread understanding—including among Israel’s adversaries in the Middle East—that Israel has amassed a significant nuclear arsenal (believed to range from 80-200 warheads). So it isn’t the case that an admission of the arsenal by Israel or the United States would be treated as a revelation of heretofore-unknown facts. Arab leaders understand that their security is enhanced by the NPT and would suffer were they to abandon the treaty. And the lesson of sanctions for Iran is now out there for potential proliferators to see. Thus, rhetoric aside, the admission by Israel or the United States of Israel’s nuclear weapons status is unlikely to cause a political tsunami in the United Nations, or sweep aside the NPT, or otherwise cause a move by a group of countries to leave that treaty.
Continuing to hide Israel’s testing violation is a direct counter to the US claim that it stands for the rule of law and implies that the United States cannot be counted on to defend treaties if they are violated by Israel. This failure fosters cynicism about the seriousness of the United States and its allies on the restraining of nuclear weapons. In the wake of the Iran agreement, it underscores concerns that the United States has double standards on arms control when Israel is involved.
Just as it is appropriate to demand that Iran be transparent about its nuclear history in relation to its NPT violations, it is appropriate to demand that Israel and South Africa be transparent regarding their activities surrounding the violation of the Limited Test Ban Treaty. An investigation by the United Nations (via the International Atomic Energy Agency) of the Vela event with the full cooperation of its members would be an appropriate step toward resolving this issue. Surely, a credible claim of a violation of the LTBT deserves no less, especially at a time when nuclear sensitivities in the Middle East and elsewhere have reached such a high level.
The question is: What should the international community do about Israel’s and South Africa’s violation? Perhaps some would argue that a violation of a nuclear arms control treaty occurring decades ago should be treated as if a statute of limitations applies. But that violation has undoubtedly aided the development of sophisticated nuclear weapons that can murder millions. There should be no statute of limitations for any violation of international law that has resulted or can result in a holocaust. The ultimate decision on sanctions for the violation should be left to the United Nations.
In any case, if the US government’s silence and cover-up of Israel’s violation of the Limited Test Ban Treaty continues, and the arms control and nonproliferation community acquiesces in it, what shall we make of all the grand-sounding rhetoric we have heard for more than four decades about the importance of international nuclear arms control treaties?
"
