Bidding farewell to 2017, Trump tweets new support for Iranian protesters

Times of Israel ^ | Today, 5:43 am | By Agencies and TOI staff

[GonzoII]

Responding to goading tweets, Hassan Rouhani says US president 'has forgotten that he had called Iranian people 'terrorists' a few months ago'

Closing 2017 with a series of tweets summarizing his administration’s achievements over the past year, US President Donald Trump bolstered his voiced support for protesters in Iran, saying that the government there is trying to throttle the demonstrations by cutting off communications.

In a tweet Sunday, Trump said: “Iran, the Number One State of Sponsored Terror with numerous violations of Human Rights occurring on an hourly basis, has now closed down the Internet so that peaceful demonstrators cannot communicate. Not good!”

[GonzoII]

May 2018 be the year we bid farewell to the current regime of Iran.

[ScottinVA]

May 2018 be the year we bid farewell to the current regime of Iran.

... And other forms of cancer...

[silverleaf]

Rouhani is the terrorist, not the young adults beaten and shot for wanting freedom

Her name was Neda
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/world/middleeast/23neda.html

[grania]

I'll be an outlier here. A revolution in Iran would be a bad thing. It would be a vacuum where the maniacs kicked out of Syria and northern Iraq will keep up the regime change agenda. In every place it's been done, they've been worse off.

Logically, the government that's the worst and we should be opposing is Saudi Arabia. They're our allies.

I'm not happy that President Trump seems to have bought into the globalist regime change agenda. It's one of the things he campaigned against.

[rbmillerjr]

You logic linking Globalism with tin pot mullah dictators is flawed.

[grania]

How is my logical thinking flawed? I'm talking about sudden regime change creating a vacuum. In Egypt, Libya, Kiev, Syria, Iraq Afghanistan, it has created more problems than it has solved. We should not, and should we ever have been, involved in the overthrow of governments for a perceived political advantage. It would be even worse now, with those fighters who were armed, trained, and supported to illegally fight Assad. Add to that those displaced Mideasterners who are now all over the world and would love to get involved in spreading their sick agenda where-ever there's weakness.

Besides that, who benefits from the war this could create if Iran, Turkey, Syria, and Russia fight back together?

[GraceG]

[ I’ll be an outlier here. A revolution in Iran would be a bad thing. It would be a vacuum where the maniacs kicked out of Syria and northern Iraq will keep up the regime change agenda. In every place it’s been done, they’ve been worse off.

Logically, the government that’s the worst and we should be opposing is Saudi Arabia. They’re our allies.

I’m not happy that President Trump seems to have bought into the globalist regime change agenda. It’s one of the things he campaigned against. ]

Obama supported the usurpation of secular power in Libya and Egypt...

Obama was silent in 2009 when secular protesters rose up against the Mullahs...

A secular revolution against theocracy is not as bad and all Trump has to do is give VERBAL support.

[RC one]

If the people of Iran wish to be free from their despotic theocracy, we should aid them. America has always stood for freedom and it seems to me that it’s more important than ever that oppressed people throughout the world see that America still stands for freedom and that we will have their backs when they decide to rise up against their oppressors. We need to remember who we are-we’re America and we bring death to tyrants.

[MarvinStinson]

You are on the side of the mullahs?

[miniTAX]

Nobody can't predict the outcome if the Mullahs were toppled. But Obama was for the Arab spring and against the Iranian protesters, so it's probably safe to bet exactly the inverse, against the Arab spring and for the Iranian protesters.

[GonzoII]

Bump?

[RC one]

IMO, freedom is, potentially, our greatest weapon. that is all I mean to say.

[grania]

You're on the side of the mullahs?

No. In a circumstance where there is a real threat to the end of civilization, I'm in favor of stable governments. Create an opportunity, and chaos spreads.

[RC one]

The threat you speak o is more than likely coming one way or the other.

[GonzoII]

[GonzoII]

"Bidding farewell to 2017, Trump tweets new support for Iranian protesters,"

[kabar]

Iran is the world’s biggest state sponsor of terrorism and has been since 1979. The government of Iran is developing nuclear weapons and seeks hegemony over the region, which is vital to the global economy. Iran supplied weapons and advisors that have killed Americans in Iraq and Saudi Arabia. The Iranians have been working with North Korea.

There is no downside to regime change in Iran. In fact, it is imperative that it be done as soon as possible. The overwhelming majority of Iranians would welcome it.

[nuconvert]

Bump

[kabar]

How do you define stable governments? Does stability trump the will of the people?

[grania]

We respectfully disagree. Everytime the US gins up "spontaneous uprisings" it's supposedly against the worst regime in the world. Iran is a whole lot or real estate in the Mideast where ISIS can't get a hold. So is Saudi Arabia. Why do we support one and despise the other?

As usual, we're being played by those whose globalist agenda has nothing to do with freedom or us little folk.