Let us say Yes to Iran.
We will never say yes to Iran.
Because Iran supports terrorism worldwide.
Do you have any proof?
I do have proof.
Iran supports terrorists like Hizbollah and Hamas.
Who are Hizbollahs. Are they Iranians? Do you know? 60% Lebanon vote for Hizbollah. Even Christians and Jews of Lebanon support Hizbollah, Why? Are these Christians and Jews of Lebanon, terrorists? So, if, by supporting Hizbollah, these Christians and Jews are not terrorists, then Why Iran a terrorist?
Because Iran provides them Arms.
United States supports MKO with providing arms and equipments, while MKO has less than 01% support inside Iran but Iran supports Hizbollah and Hamas who have more than 70% support from their respective territories. So, whose opinion has majority support on ground? If, Hizbollah attacked United State's army then it was because united state's army was on their territories with out obtaining permission from the people of soil. Isn't it true?
But Iran can not be allowed to support terrorists.
Why United States congress passed a resolution in support of Armenian's massacre because congress thinks that being a Christian country it is the responsibility of United States to safeguard Christians around the world. This is a moral obligation. Don't you think that if Iran supports suppressed Shias around the world is a duty of moral for Iran? Just Go in 1970s and look at the state of shias in Lebanon. Why united states failed to prevent shias being neglected then? If Shias were in good condition in early 1980s then there was no place for Hizbollahs. It was united states that provided space for Hizbollahs not Iran. Would you deny this fact?
But Iran supports terrorists.
Let us take another example. In 1980s, United States and Britain created, trained and equipped Talibans. Iran then opposed it but United States and Britain ignored Iran. OK, it was in the interest of United States and Britain to support Talibans against USSR. But I ask you one simple question: when USA and Britain devised a policy to create Mujahidins against USSR than why USA and Britain had no end policy in hand to be implemented at the end of war against USSR in Afghanistan? Don't you think that USA and Britain should have devised and kept in hand a policy to control these Mujahidins at the end? Why USA and Britain just kept quit and continued to support Mujahidins with out need and necessity up to 2001 when 911 happened, while USSR withdrew its army from Afghanistan in 1987, why? What was the need for USA and Britain to support Mujahidins for 13 years after the collapse of USSR until 2001? Do you have any answer? Can Mr. Bush even create an answer of this question with billion-dollar bureaucracy at hand? An intelligent bureaucracy devises a policy keeping a purpose in mind with a policy to be implemented at the end to cool down 'anti-nodes' when the necessity is fulfilled. Do you think that these billion dollar bureaucracies of USA and Britain have fulfilled their job with full national responsibility? These bureaucracies enjoyed billions of dollars of nation's resources and produced 'nil' result. And no accountability, you know. It means the rulers of these countries not only recognize corruption but ignore it for unknown reasons, Why?
But Iran is terrorist.
I respect your opinion but would you like to consider my view, after all I am a human being like you? So, if atleast, you only want to listen my view then I humbly ask you another simple question. Please permit me to ask.
Sir, when Iran advised USA and Britain to please do not create and train these illiterate people, then USA and Britain rejected that advice. My question is very simple to understand that if USA and Britain did not train and create these people then, there would have been no 911 ever. So, what was better advice in respect of protecting innocent people, The Iran's? The Britain's or the USA's? ask your heart. So, how can we believe that Iran is wrong today?
But Iran is terrorist.