# Iranian reports say supreme leaders health worsening



## skye (Oct 31, 2013)

The 74-year-old Khamenei, who has not been seen in public since giving an address in Tehran three weeks ago, was said by Iranian sources to be suffering from increasingly acute health problems.

Citing Iranian sources, The Times of London reported Thursday that Khamenei, who has served as Supreme Leader since 1989 and who has yet to appoint an heir, may have suffered a relapse of a chronic illness and that he was convalescing after collapsing during a private meeting.

*  October 31, 2013,  *
Iranian reports say supreme leader's health worsening | The Times of Israel



In  Nov 2010 cables released by online whistle-blower WikiLeaks include remarks from an Iran source in 2009 saying Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has cancer and he is  in terminal stage of  leukemia.


There is no official confirmation  of this news of course.


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 31, 2013)

Thats fine but theres another America hating ass wipe waiting in the wings to fill his shoes, probably even worse for all we know.


----------



## skye (Oct 31, 2013)

High_Gravity said:


> Thats fine but theres another America hating ass wipe waiting in the wings to fill his shoes, probably even worse for all we know.



Yes. And their quest for the bomb is not going to stop either.... we will still have to see how this all ends.


----------



## TheBarber (Oct 31, 2013)

skye said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Thats fine but theres another America hating ass wipe waiting in the wings to fill his shoes, probably even worse for all we know.
> ...



How can a country like the US ask others not to make what they already have? Maybe if they got rid of their own nukes...


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Oct 31, 2013)

TheBarber said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



   Hilarious...have fun in your sophomore political theory class.


----------



## skye (Oct 31, 2013)

TheBarber said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...




The fanatical theocratic and terrorist supporting behavior of Iran doesn't inspire confidence.

Their aggressive attitude towards their enemies presents the problem that some unhinged, disastrous decision could be made any time they are in possession of nuclear capability.


----------



## TheBarber (Oct 31, 2013)

skye said:


> TheBarber said:
> 
> 
> > skye said:
> ...



The US are the aggressive ones, attacking Iran and Afghanistan for no reason. Iran hasn't attacked anyone in a really long time.


----------



## skye (Oct 31, 2013)

TheBarber said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> > TheBarber said:
> ...




Iran sponsors terrorism and attacks by proxy....didn't you know that? The terrorist group Hezbollah conducts  operations around the world at Iran's behest.

Iran hasn't attacked anyone in a really long time??????  think again ...


----------



## Harry Dresden (Oct 31, 2013)

TheBarber said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> > TheBarber said:
> ...


no reason to attack Afghanistan?.....ok if you say so...

and when did the US attack Iran?....

what Country are you from?.....that may clear up why you have the position you have....


----------



## R.C. Christian (Oct 31, 2013)

skye said:


> TheBarber said:
> 
> 
> > skye said:
> ...



The United States supports terrorism by proxy every day. Has done so for decades. The United States and Britain are COMPLETELY responsible for Iran. 

I'm not trying to be an ass, just pragmatic. Most people can't handle it.


----------



## TheBarber (Oct 31, 2013)

Harry Dresden said:


> TheBarber said:
> 
> 
> > skye said:
> ...



I meant Iraq, sorry. Attacking Afghanistan to get Osama is like attacking Italy to get at the mafia, makes no sense.


----------



## Connery (Oct 31, 2013)

TheBarber said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...




Your are suggesting that the US give their security and defense in deference to an enemy state. That simply does  not make sense.



TheBarber said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> > TheBarber said:
> ...



Iran cannot support a war much less engage in the sophisticated operations necessary to maintain this type of operation.


----------



## Bloodrock44 (Oct 31, 2013)

TheBarber said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> > TheBarber said:
> ...



Please stick to cutting hair. Just sayin


----------



## irosie91 (Oct 31, 2013)

Connery said:


> TheBarber said:
> 
> 
> > skye said:
> ...




Iran can and does do all kinds of mischief       Iran can INSPIRE  the whole  "SHIITE" 
world .   -----there are shiites here and there and everywhere ----thruout the islamic world.

    I learned something about this subject in my youth------even before I understood 
    what I was learning and what sunni and shiite is.     SHIITES---no matter from where---
    look to IRAN ---------for shiites there is something  "holy"   about iran      in fact---
    for shiites      FARSI  is something like a holy language.    Right now---there are SHIITES 
    lining the border between  Yemen and Saudi Arabia------at the ready to invade 
    saudi arabia pending an INFLUX  of -------shiites from around the world ---under the 
    direction of Iran          who needs  "sophisticated"???


----------



## Connery (Oct 31, 2013)

irosie91 said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> > TheBarber said:
> ...



Sophisticated means keeping up with US technology, funding for such an undertaking and the staying power to complete the task at hand.


----------



## sambino510 (Nov 1, 2013)

Connery said:


> TheBarber said:
> 
> 
> > skye said:
> ...



What this person is asking is that the U.S. make a concession on their nuclear arsenal, and give up their obvious advantage they have as a nuclear state. Such could be said about any nuclear state, especially the U.N. security council, pretty much all of which possess nuclear weapons.

Tell me how it makes logical sense, diplomatically, to demand of someone what you are not willing to do yourself? Yes, it would make us weaker, but it would be a sign of good faith to accelerate our disarmament process in earnest, rather than just talk a big game.


----------



## Connery (Nov 1, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> > TheBarber said:
> ...




Where does your term "logic" come into play and how do you define that?
Diplomatically, it would not be a sign of good faith at all. There is no advantage in making us weaker.


----------



## idb (Nov 1, 2013)

Connery said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > Connery said:
> ...



True, but why deny another state access to the same weapons?


----------



## TheBarber (Nov 1, 2013)

Connery said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > Connery said:
> ...


Giving up nukes can't make the US weaker since you don't even use them, in fact, nobody has used nukes since the US dropped 2 on japan.


----------



## sambino510 (Nov 1, 2013)

Connery said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > Connery said:
> ...



"Logically", a country would expect us to give up our weapons program if we are to demand that they give up their weapons program. However, "logically", the U.S. would not want to do this because we and the other nuclear states enjoy having an advantage over the international community. 

It is blatant hypocrisy to maintain our arsenal, the largest in the world, much of which is on CONSTANT STANBY, while we absolutely cripple an economy like Iran's just because we SUSPECT they are developing a weapon.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Nov 1, 2013)

TheBarber said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > TheBarber said:
> ...



so what were they supposed to do?.....they asked the Taliban to turn him over,you saw what happened.....so tell me, what would you have done?...


----------



## Jughead (Nov 1, 2013)

idb said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> > sambino510 said:
> ...


Could it be the fact that Iran stated they want to destroy Israel? Could it also have something to do with Iran's support of Hezbollah, a terrorist organization?


----------



## Harry Dresden (Nov 1, 2013)

TheBarber said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> > sambino510 said:
> ...



are you asking everyone else to do likewise?....


----------



## sambino510 (Nov 1, 2013)

Harry Dresden said:


> TheBarber said:
> 
> 
> > Connery said:
> ...



I can't speak for this person, but yes, I would ask everyone else to do likewise. Either everyone should have nukes or nobody should have nukes, if we are to say their primary use is as a deterrence. The former, everyone having them, is more practical than expecting every single country to trust each other enough to destroy their own arsenal. Of course, nuclear states would never agree to this, because they don't want to lose their edge over other countries. They like having an unfair advantage under international law and the IAEA.


----------



## sambino510 (Nov 1, 2013)

Jughead said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Connery said:
> ...



"Iran" didn't state anything. If anything, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated something along those lines, but many feel that he was misinterpreted, and instead it was something like "if Israel tried anything against Iran, they would be wiped off the map", which is completely different. Either way, the new president, Hassan Rouhani, has stated nothing of the sort. Even if he DID, let's apply our wonderful American value of freedom of speech on the international level. Just because someone makes some threatening remarks doesn't justify crippling economic sanctions, possible bombings, or otherwise.

"Terrorist organization" depends on one's perspective. A country is allowed to support various groups abroad if they feel it is in their interest to do so. For Iran, Hezbollah members are freedom fighters, not terrorists.


----------



## TheBarber (Nov 1, 2013)

Harry Dresden said:


> TheBarber said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



Send in some seals, air support... And go get him. You don't send in an army to catch maybe two dozen evil doers. Some were training in Africa, go get them...


----------



## Harry Dresden (Nov 1, 2013)

TheBarber said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > TheBarber said:
> ...



and so you dont think that their response would be to use their military to stop the Seals?.....and if they captured the Seals.....then what?....


----------



## TheBarber (Nov 2, 2013)

Harry Dresden said:


> TheBarber said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



What military? The Taliban? Geez, a bunch of guy in PJs and sandals riding around on old toyota pick-ups. Just throw some soap at them and they'd be thoroughly confused.

Anyways, as the story goes, it was Seals who went to rescue Osama in Pakistan. Not the army.


----------



## Connery (Nov 2, 2013)

TheBarber said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> > sambino510 said:
> ...



That does not insure the future. Having the nukes and not using them is  a deterrent, rather then disarming and hoping no one develops such weapons.


----------



## Connery (Nov 2, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > TheBarber said:
> ...



You are speaking of ideals and wishful thinking.


----------



## TheBarber (Nov 2, 2013)

Connery said:


> TheBarber said:
> 
> 
> > Connery said:
> ...



So by that same reasoning, we should let Iran develop nukes. I agree.


----------



## Connery (Nov 2, 2013)

TheBarber said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> > TheBarber said:
> ...



In as much as when someone wants to see us dead we support them to having a weapon to accomplish their goal....

"The emblematic Death to U.S.A chant resounded through the Iranian capital anew on Friday, one week after it appeared that the signature slogan could be sidelined as part of a possible thaw in long-acrimonious relations between Iran and the United States.

At the formal Friday prayers ceremony, hard-line Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami labeled President Obama a liar and revived the Death to U.S.A mantra, whipping up worshipers with a series of denunciations of the Great Satan, another term he repeated with considerable relish."





A mural shows a gun painted with an interpretation of the American flag 
on the wall of the former U.S. Embassy in Tehran in September.​
One week later, 'Death to U.S.A.' chant back in vogue in Iran capital - latimes.com


----------



## TheBarber (Nov 2, 2013)

Connery said:


> TheBarber said:
> 
> 
> > Connery said:
> ...



Why would Iran attack the US? You're nuts. 

YOU were the one who brought up nukes as a deterrent, so if that's the case, then Iran should be allowed to have some, to deter people who want to attack them, namely Israel and the US.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Nov 2, 2013)

TheBarber said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > TheBarber said:
> ...



yea those guys in Pajamas who have held us at bay for 10 years.....and if you dont think the Pakistan Govt did not turn their backs on the Bin Laden thing then you are pretty naive....


----------



## sambino510 (Nov 2, 2013)

Connery said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



Right, which is why later in my statement I said that everybody should have nukes. This is not wishful thinking, this is logic. If one country uses deterrence as reasoning for having weapons, why can't countries like Iran use the same excuse? Not that they're even TRYING to get a weapon, or at least we can't prove it.


----------



## Connery (Nov 2, 2013)

TheBarber said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> > TheBarber said:
> ...


 In your opinion they would not attack the US yet they wish death to U.S.A. They would not use a pea shooter, they would use nukes to effectuate that death given the opportunity..... You so funny....


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn (Nov 21, 2013)

History shows us Iran is not interested in starting wars.

No wars started by Iran in hundreds of years.

Present government has never started a war with anyone.

Those with nuclear weapons, like the US and Israel, have started many wars.

The US has used nuclear weapons twice, and on civilian populations.

Facts in History speak for themselves about what nations threaten world peace.

And it is not Iran.


----------



## MHunterB (Nov 21, 2013)

So Persia never invaded Greece........


----------



## irosie91 (Nov 21, 2013)

MHunterB said:


> So Persia never invaded Greece........



Marge----I came into contact with muslims from   southeast asia and iran and 
----some ---but less from  middle east and subsaharan africa-----starting more 
than 50 years ago-------here in the US----they were generally educated people--
here for more educatiion or----to advance in their professions.      The partyline 
is  MUSLIMS NEVER START A WAR       and---here is a new word I learned 
about 45 years ago      "muslims have the most "toleration"  "       I have to 
admit------before 1979 ---most of the Iranians were normal people----I 
considered them ----the most sophisticated thinkers amongst muslims ---back then. 
Iran ----during the time of its pre-islamic history----was an EMPIRE BY CONQUEST---
---its islamic history is bloodied by  HUGE GENOCIDES ------it could be that some 
people would not characterize the murder of millions of zoroastrians as  "war"---but 
I would-----well---actually the minions of Genghis khan AND arab invaders 
probably murdered in the hundreds of millions----but lets say 
"no war"       Hezbollah is entirely armed and its leaders trained in Iran and 
completely controlled by Iran------Saudi arabian leaders get nauseated 
every time they look across the border between themselves and Yemen and 
see those    WARRIOR HEZBOLLAH THUGS--------in fact Yemeni sunnis are 
not all that  delighted with them either.     It is getting to the point ----as some 
have noted------that jews are not looking so bad to the sunnis of arabia and 
yemen.      Chances are that the sunnis of  Iraq wish they could have 
their jews back         Of course lots of shiites might say    "shiite and iran is 
no related"--------they are lying-----shiites are so INTO iran-----that shiite 
schools in India offer two  "holy"   languages .-------arabic and farsi.    I do not 
know why it happened-----ie historically why it happened----but somehow---
Iran really is the  SHIITE center.


----------



## skye (Nov 21, 2013)

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> History shows us Iran is not interested in starting wars.
> 
> No wars started by Iran in hundreds of years.
> 
> ...





The only reason Iran hasn't started a conventional style war against its sworn enemies, the Great and Little Satan (US and Israel) is that it knows it hasn't have the slightest chance, instead it is very successful  and is the world's leader in asymmetrical  and terrorist warfare.

To say that Iran is peace loving is just ludicrous in view of its ruthless deadly tactics and anyone who believes that Iran is a peaceful nation is just a naive fool who has been mislead by the efficient and powerful smiling Iranian propaganda machine.


----------



## rhodescholar (Nov 21, 2013)

skye said:


> The 74-year-old Khamenei, who has not been seen in public since giving an address in Tehran three weeks ago, was said by Iranian sources to be suffering from increasingly acute health problems.
> 
> Citing Iranian sources, The Times of London reported Thursday that Khamenei, who has served as Supreme Leader since 1989 and who has yet to appoint an heir, may have suffered a relapse of a chronic illness and that he was convalescing after collapsing during a private meeting.



There are few humans on earth praying for that animal's painful, slow death more than I am.  I would never normally wish cancer or something horrible on anyone, but that fucking turd deserves all 79 types of lymphoma, and every other type of terrible disease I can think of, and it still would not be sufficient for all of the horrific, unimaginable crimes committed by him and that fucking scumhole regime of iran.


----------



## rhodescholar (Nov 21, 2013)

R.C. Christian said:


> The United States supports terrorism by proxy every day. Has done so for decades. The United States and Britain are COMPLETELY responsible for Iran.



Really?  How's that?  Now before you reply, just understand I know more about american 50s and 60s mideast foreign policy history than most of this board combined, so be careful of what you sling.


----------



## rhodescholar (Nov 21, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> I can't speak for this person, but yes, I would ask everyone else to do likewise. Either everyone should have nukes or nobody should have nukes, if we are to say their primary use is as a deterrence. The former, everyone having them, is more practical than expecting every single country to trust each other enough to destroy their own arsenal. Of course, nuclear states would never agree to this, because they don't want to lose their edge over other countries. They like having an unfair advantage under international law and the IAEA.



and:



sambino510 said:


> "Iran" didn't state anything. If anything, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated something along those lines, but many feel that he was misinterpreted, and instead it was something like "if Israel tried anything against Iran, they would be wiped off the map", which is completely different. Either way, the new president, Hassan Rouhani, has stated nothing of the sort. Even if he DID, let's apply our wonderful American value of freedom of speech on the international level. Just because someone makes some threatening remarks doesn't justify crippling economic sanctions, possible bombings, or otherwise.
> 
> "Terrorist organization" depends on one's perspective. A country is allowed to support various groups abroad if they feel it is in their interest to do so. For Iran, Hezbollah members are freedom fighters, not terrorists.



Simply put, you are neither rational nor intelligent, making a conversation about the mideast not possible.


----------



## rhodescholar (Nov 21, 2013)

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> History shows us Iran is not interested in starting wars.....



Ugh, this moron entering the thread guarantees it lands in the sewage system.  This forum needs a minimum IQ test at the front gate.


----------



## irosie91 (Nov 22, 2013)

rhodescholar said:


> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> > History shows us Iran is not interested in starting wars.....
> ...




Try to understand----sherri endorses the actions of Hezbollah----she MOST especially 
likes    NUS-KHARAH-ALLAH  becasue he has   hundreds  of thousands of nail bombs 
and   LONG RANGE missile launchers   --------for use in the HONOR of  "isa/allah"

so far----he has launched tens of thousands----to her delight----FOR 
ISA/ALLAHUAKBARRRRRR-----besides his hands on obscene mutilation 
murders -----to her delight

Sadly----there is some conflict between  those Iranian proxy Hezbollah 
geniuses    -----and Saudi arabia----cross the   yemeni/saudi border----
ALSO GOOD -----FOR THE GLORY OF IRAN


----------



## rhodescholar (Nov 23, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> Right, which is why later in my statement I said that everybody should have nukes. This is not wishful thinking, this is logic. If one country uses deterrence as reasoning for having weapons, why can't countries like Iran use the same excuse? Not that they're even TRYING to get a weapon, or at least we can't prove it.



It's hilarious how those dolts claiming they are "peace seekers" now shift their opinion on nuclear weapons to "everyone should have them...."  Which is as stupid a thought as one could spew, given that not all countries are equally responsible nor on equal moral footing - and how would arming every country with nukes reduce the global threat of their usage, let alone the nuclear waste byproducts from their manufacture damaging the environment further?

And another laughable point with these far left tools, how come they advocate all countries have nukes for the purpose of mutually deterring each other - but when it comes to gun control, refuse to accept the very same concept being applied to people with conceal and carry, or simply the idea of gun ownership?  The right has a few hypocrisies, but the far left has one thousand times more of them.


----------



## antique4xpu (Nov 23, 2013)

our nation has a terrible history in iran ....... we forced the iranian people to live under the despotic pavlavi family for decades.

the jews were the worst victims of world war 2 ...... their land was taken by nazi terrorists and the jewish victims  were moved into concentration camps by the nazi terrorists ..... millions were then killed 

than the israelis took palestinian owned lands and the zionist terrorists  forced their  victime to live in refugee camps ... thousands were then killed 

israel stole the nuclear secrets from america and built over a hundred nukes ......
if i had a nuke , i would think it only fair to loan it to the palestinians


----------



## rhodescholar (Nov 23, 2013)

antique4xpu said:


> our nation has a terrible history in iran ....... we forced the iranian people to live under the despotic pavlavi family for decades.



Uh, no we didn't, and the fact that they overthrew the shah was proof.



> the jews were the worst victims of world war 2 ...... their land was taken by nazi terrorists and the jewish victims  were moved into concentration camps by the nazi terrorists ..... millions were then killed



So far, you're on the right track...



> than the israelis took palestinian owned lands and the zionist terrorists forced their  victime to live in refugee camps ... thousands were then killed



...and then go right off the deep end.  

To idiots like this: a) jews are not allowed to move/immigrate b) no jews bought land from absentee arab owners c) only arab muslims can have sovereignty in the mideast d) muslims have a conflict with jews in the mideast, but are treating all of the other non-muslim minority groups well e) ignoring that the arab muslims initiated the 1948 war - not the jews



> israel stole the nuclear secrets from america and built over a hundred nukes ......
> if i had a nuke , i would think it only fair to loan it to the palestinians



Not much on facts is this tool.  Israel obtained its uranium and nuclear tech from france and to a certain extent, from norway.  And how could the arab neighbors use a nuke on israel if they are 3 miles away?  Facts, much?


----------

