Bharat Rakshak

ramana wrote:Looks like an informal alliance between Iran, Syria and Turkey is coming into play just like in historical times.

i.e. Persian, Assyrian and Hittites!

The monumental expansion of arms sales and the buildup of naval and air power in the Arabian Sea region are unprecedented. They are also alarming to the highest degree.

A quarter of the world's nuclear aircraft carriers will soon be in the Arabian Sea.

The Nimitz class nuclear-powered supercarrier USS Abraham Lincoln arrived in the region on October 17 to join the USS Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group, which in turn had arrived there on June 18 as part of a regular rotation.

The Charles de Gaulle, flagship of the French navy, the country's only aircraft carrier and the sole non-American nuclear carrier, will soon join its two U.S. counterparts. The U.S. possesses half the world's twenty-two aircraft carriers, all eleven supercarriers (those displacing over 70,000 tons) and eleven of twelve nuclear carriers.

Regarding the unscheduled deployment of a second American aircraft carrier to the region, a CBS News report stated:

"Air strikes in Afghanistan are up 50 per cent and now Defense Secretary Gates has ordered a second aircraft carrier, the USS Lincoln, into the fight.

"Two carriers operating off the coast of Pakistan means about 120 aircraft available for missions over Afghanistan. And that's not counting U.S. Air Force missions flown out of Bagram and Kandahar." [1]

The countries bordering the Arabian Sea are Somalia, Djibouti, Yemen, Oman, Iran, Pakistan, India and the island nation of Maldives.

Cosmo_R wrote:"TEHRAN: The Supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has urged the Islamic Ummah to sympathise and provide assistance to Kashmir, and called the United States an arrogant, "self-styled commandant of the Islamic region and the real sponsor of the Zionist regime". (Read: UN removes J&K from disputed list, Pak objects)

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 935375.cms

Well, there goes the regional compact with Iran. I can now see (and appreciate) why the Israelis want to bomb Iran. Go IDF!

The Obama administration has decided not to seek sanctions on Japan's leading energy explorer over its dealings with Iran.The State Department said Wednesday it would not investigate the Inpex for possible violations of the Iran Sanctions Act based on the company's decision last month to withdraw from a $2 billion deal in Iran's South Azadegan oil field.The State Department said Inpex also pledged not to engage in activity in Iran's energy sector that could draw U.S. sanctions.The department statement welcomed Inpex's steps and encouraged other foreign firms to join suit. The Japanese government owns 19 percent of Inpex, which had a 10 percent stake in the Azadegan project.

Cosmo_R wrote:"TEHRAN: The Supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has urged the Islamic Ummah to sympathise and provide assistance to Kashmir, and called the United States an arrogant, "self-styled commandant of the Islamic region and the real sponsor of the Zionist regime". (Read: UN removes J&K from disputed list, Pak objects)

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 935375.cms

Well, there goes the regional compact with Iran. I can now see (and appreciate) why the Israelis want to bomb Iran. Go IDF!

Lalmohan (in J&K thread) wrote:^^^ that speech is 98% directed against the US, 1% against Israel, and possibly 0.05% against India

jiteshn wrote:Iran supported the pakistani's in every one of the indo-pak wars. Doesn't that give you a clue? All of a sudden, the iranians feel shocked when india voted against it at the IAEA.

jiteshn wrote: The persians apply the right amount of taqiyaa in every field. No matter how liberal some islamic states are, they just can't stop kissing ummahs a$$ and these aspirations of becoming a "caliphate" one day.

Kamboja wrote:

jiteshn wrote:Iran supported the pakistani's in every one of the indo-pak wars. Doesn't that give you a clue? All of a sudden, the iranians feel shocked when india voted against it at the IAEA.

In '65 it was the Shah's regime, which was a US puppet, so it's not surprising they would assist another US puppet. That changed significantly after the '79 revolution. The post-revolutionary government has helped India on occasion - see
http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/oct/03spec1.htm

jiteshn wrote:I cannot understand the infatuation of BR members with iran. Just because you happen to meet a few self-exiled iranians abroad who display a liberal mindset doesn't paint the country like such.

Iran supported the pakistani's in every one of the indo-pak wars. Doesn't that give you a clue? All of a sudden, the iranians feel shocked when india voted against it at the IAEA.

The persians apply the right amount of taqiyaa in every field. No matter how liberal some islamic states are, they just can't stop kissing ummahs a$$ and these aspirations of becoming a "caliphate" one day.

jiteshn wrote:I cannot understand the infatuation of BR members with iran. Just because you happen to meet a few self-exiled iranians abroad who display a liberal mindset doesn't paint the country like such.

Iran supported the pakistani's in every one of the indo-pak wars. Doesn't that give you a clue? All of a sudden, the iranians feel shocked when india voted against it at the IAEA.

The persians apply the right amount of taqiyaa in every field. No matter how liberal some islamic states are, they just can't stop kissing ummahs a$$ and these aspirations of becoming a "caliphate" one day.

Cosmo_R wrote:"TEHRAN: The Supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has urged the Islamic Ummah to sympathise and provide assistance to Kashmir, and called the United States an arrogant, "self-styled commandant of the Islamic region and the real sponsor of the Zionist regime". (Read: UN removes J&K from disputed list, Pak objects)

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 935375.cms

arun wrote:

Cosmo_R wrote:"TEHRAN: The Supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has urged the Islamic Ummah to sympathise and provide assistance to Kashmir, and called the United States an arrogant, "self-styled commandant of the Islamic region and the real sponsor of the Zionist regime". (Read: UN removes J&K from disputed list, Pak objects)

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 935375.cms

India serves demarche on Iran over Kashmir remarks

Pranav wrote:

Cosmo_R wrote:"TEHRAN: The Supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has urged the Islamic Ummah to sympathise and provide assistance to Kashmir, and called the United States an arrogant, "self-styled commandant of the Islamic region and the real sponsor of the Zionist regime". (Read: UN removes J&K from disputed list, Pak objects)

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 935375.cms

Well, there goes the regional compact with Iran. I can now see (and appreciate) why the Israelis want to bomb Iran. Go IDF!

Lalmohan (in J&K thread) wrote:^^^ that speech is 98% directed against the US, 1% against Israel, and possibly 0.05% against India

jiteshn wrote:I cannot understand the infatuation of BR members with iran. Just because you happen to meet a few self-exiled iranians abroad who display a liberal mindset doesn't paint the country like such.

Iran supported the pakistani's in every one of the indo-pak wars. Doesn't that give you a clue? All of a sudden, the iranians feel shocked when india voted against it at the IAEA.

The persians apply the right amount of taqiyaa in every field. No matter how liberal some islamic states are, they just can't stop kissing ummahs a$$ and these aspirations of becoming a "caliphate" one day.

Cosmo_R wrote:As to Iranian wimmenz, they will flock to India for bit parts in Bollywood to show off their bit parts (Negar Khan for example). Besides, we have our own desi "Iranis" such as Perizaad Zorabian who proudly proclaim their "Iranianess".

VikasRaina wrote:Why is the act of Shah of Iran supporting TSP in wars considered as if he was an alien ruling Iran. His actions were anti-Indian and he represented Iranian people at that time. Like it or hate it.
So If GoI bombs Tehran today and tomorrow NDA govt claims that It was UPA and not them. Would it fly ?

Iran being conduit to the Northern Alliance for India was no favor to India. We all i.e. Russia, Iran and India were in the same boat as far as Talibani rule in Kabul was concerned.
All that I hear about Iran helping India out is in some obscure UNHRC in Geneva. What about the number of times India voting in favor of Iran on various forums. Why doesn't anyone bring that up.

It is not as if Iran was doing us a favor all the time with no reciprocation.

Lets not forget that Iran has very few friends left in the world and with Crazy Mullahs ruling the roost, The odds of Iran making new friends are remote in near future. They better not force India into distant camp.

The US federal police, the FBI, sent a cable to the BKA two weeks ago noting another possible further attack. A Shiite-Indian group known as the "Saif," or sword, is believed to have engaged in a pact with al-Qaida and to have sent two men to Germany to carry out an attack there.

Both were believed to be traveling to the United Arab Emirates on Nov. 22, where they would be supplied with new travel papers so that they could continue on to Germany. The suspects allegedly already posess visas for Europe's Schengen zone of visa-free travel. The FBI has named Mushtaq Altaf bin-Khadri as the man behind the attack plans.

The man believed to be trying to smuggle the would-be terrorists into Europe is 54-year-old weapons dealer Dawood Ibrahim, who the United Nations believes is a major backer of terrorism. He is considered to be one of the men behind the terror attacks perpetrated in Mumbai in Novembner 2008.

Cosmo_R wrote:^^^RajeshA: Difficult to believe a Shiite group allying itself in any way with a Wahhabi Al-Qaida let alone an Indian one. If it is an Indian Shiite group, it does not necessarily mean Iran is involved—our western 'naybors' would be more likely to indulge.

RamaY wrote:Could Khomeni's statements in response to Indian cozzying to KSA?

RajeshA wrote:Terrorists Believed to Be Planning Attack in Berlin: Spiegel Online

The US federal police, the FBI, sent a cable to the BKA two weeks ago noting another possible further attack. A Shiite-Indian group known as the "Saif," or sword, is believed to have engaged in a pact with al-Qaida and to have sent two men to Germany to carry out an attack there.

WTF, Now they are trying to recruit Indians for terror!!!

Has Iran now decided to enter a pact with Al-Qaeda, and to besmirch India's reputation in the West and make India a target of West in the GWOT!

I don't think, there would be many extremist Shi'ite Groups in India who would not be somehow connected to Tehran!

Raghavendra wrote:

RajeshA wrote:Terrorists Believed to Be Planning Attack in Berlin: Spiegel Online
WTF, Now they are trying to recruit Indians for terror!!!

Has Iran now decided to enter a pact with Al-Qaeda, and to besmirch India's reputation in the West and make India a target of West in the GWOT!

I don't think, there would be many extremist Shi'ite Groups in India who would not be somehow connected to Tehran!

Could that be an error? Instead of Shiite-Iranian group they wrote Shiite-Indian group.

shyamd wrote:Where in the article does it say that Iran or Iranian intel recruited the 2 indian shi'ites? The article said Dawood ibrahim recruited the individuals, who could easily be part of his network, which we know has muslims both sunni and shia, as well as hindus, christians.

RajeshA wrote:

Raghavendra wrote:Could that be an error? Instead of Shiite-Iranian group they wrote Shiite-Indian group.

I would be surprised if it were Shi'ite Iranian group because in Iran everything to do with Shia is under the direct control of the Supreme Leader, at least everything that is extremist, because he is supposed to the Supreme Extremist. The only groups not in control are the ones asking for more liberty.

The informer claimed the cell consisted of six people, two of whom were believed to be staying in Berlin. The remaining four – a German, a Turkish national, a North African and another unidentified member – were planning to travel to Germany to carry out the attack. He said the attackers planned to take hostages and create a "bloodbath" with automatic weapons.

shyamd wrote:RajeshA, there are reports of networks/IRGC cells in India.It is quite possible, however I just don't think the Iranians will launch terror attacks on the west. Its cheaper and easier to cause that trouble in Iraq or Afghanistan.

shyamd wrote:I doubt Dawood has much to gain from targetting the west. If this attack did go through, his position would become even more precarious and he'd be forced to be handed over to the west.
So he is happy targetting India, I don't think he'd back any sort of attack against the west.

Describing the English translation of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as “weak,” Iranian officials say India should not have changed its vote for this reason alone at a recent meeting of the United Nations committee on human rights.

“It is unfortunate but not unusual because the main text in Farsi was totally different from the English translation,” Iranian officials said, admitting that the rendition from Farsi on the web site of the Supreme Leader was “weak.”

“There were many differences when the English version gets compared with the original in Farsi. We admit accurate translation is very important. And it was not. On this basis, we asked India not to change its vote but we couldn't convince the [Indian] officials. That is why we believe that the mention of Kashmir as a nation in the translation might not be the main reason for India changing its stance,” the officials said.

The officials noted that India's changed stance was not highlighted in the Iranian media.

“In Iran, it was not published in all newspapers though it did appear on some web sites. Otherwise, it would have created a problem in managing public opinion.”

Iranian officials explained that the word used in the Farsi original was ‘millat,' which was totally different from nation in the political sense. Had the Iranian intention been to question India's sovereignty over Kashmir, it would have used ‘kishwar' or ‘hakimiyat.'

However, despite this difference of perception between the two countries, officials from both sides maintained that bilateral ties would remain unaffected. The Indian officials said they attached “high priority” to ties with Iran.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's emissaries also learn of a special "Iran observer" in the Azerbaijan capital of Baku who reports on a dispute that played out during a meeting of Iran's Supreme National Security Council. An enraged Revolutionary Guard Chief of Staff Mohammed Ali Jafari allegedly got into a heated argument with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and slapped him in the face because the generally conservative president had, surprisingly, advocated freedom of the press.