What do you think of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

[dillo]

I don't really get all of the hate on this guy.

They call him a holocaust denier. Here's what he actually said.

In the second World War, over 60 million people lost their lives. They were all human beings. Why is it that only a select group of those who were killed have become so prominent and important? Do you think that the 60 million who lost their lives were all at the result of warfare alone? There were two million that were part of the military at the time, perhaps altogether, 50 million civilians with no roles in the war – Christians, Muslims. They were all killed. The second and more important question that I raised was, if this event happened, and if it is a historical event, then we should allow everyone to research it and study it. The more research and studies are done, the clearer the issue gets. We still leave open to further studies absolute knowledge of science or math. Historical events are always subject to revisions, and reviews and studies. We're still revising our thoughts about what happened over thousands of years ago. Why is it that researchers are jailed? Why is researching this issue prohibitited? Where as we can openly question God, the prophet, concepts such as freedom and democracy? And the third question that I raised in this regard: assuming that this happened, where did it happen? Did the Palestinian people have anything to do with it? Why should the Palestinians pay for it now? Five million displaced Palestinian people is what I'm talking about. Over 60 years of living under terror. Losing the lives of thousands of dear ones. And homes that are destroyed on a daily basis over people's heads. You might argue that the Jews have the right to have a government. We're not against that. But where? At a place where their people were – several people will vote for them, and where they can govern.


Those words don't really seem very threatening or offensive to me. Am I off base here?

Also his response to 9/11

"An incident known as 9/11 occurred. It is not yet clear who carried it out, who collaborated with them, and who paved the way for them. The event took place, and – like in the case of the Holocaust – they sealed it off, refusing to allow objective research groups to find out the truth. They invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, using 9/11 as a pretext."

again he isn't violent with this, although he does not condemn the attacks he doesn't show support for them either.

Again I hope I am not being offensive but this is something that has always bothered me. Is the U.S. still mad that they overthrew our puppet dictator?

[phill4paul]

I don't give a fook about him. Unless Congress has an actual debate and declares war over evidenced aggression on our state by his then he is just a name to me.

[donnay]

He's a NWO puppet just like the rest of them.

Ahmadinejad calls for 'new world order' without nuclear monopoly (http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/ahmadinejad-calls-for-new-world-order-without-nuclear-monopoly-1.440363)

[tttppp]

I don't really get all of the hate on this guy.

They call him a holocaust denier. Here's what he actually said.

In the second World War, over 60 million people lost their lives. They were all human beings. Why is it that only a select group of those who were killed have become so prominent and important? Do you think that the 60 million who lost their lives were all at the result of warfare alone? There were two million that were part of the military at the time, perhaps altogether, 50 million civilians with no roles in the war – Christians, Muslims. They were all killed. The second and more important question that I raised was, if this event happened, and if it is a historical event, then we should allow everyone to research it and study it. The more research and studies are done, the clearer the issue gets. We still leave open to further studies absolute knowledge of science or math. Historical events are always subject to revisions, and reviews and studies. We're still revising our thoughts about what happened over thousands of years ago. Why is it that researchers are jailed? Why is researching this issue prohibitited? Where as we can openly question God, the prophet, concepts such as freedom and democracy? And the third question that I raised in this regard: assuming that this happened, where did it happen? Did the Palestinian people have anything to do with it? Why should the Palestinians pay for it now? Five million displaced Palestinian people is what I'm talking about. Over 60 years of living under terror. Losing the lives of thousands of dear ones. And homes that are destroyed on a daily basis over people's heads. You might argue that the Jews have the right to have a government. We're not against that. But where? At a place where their people were – several people will vote for them, and where they can govern.


Those words don't really seem very threatening or offensive to me. Am I off base here?

Also his response to 9/11

"An incident known as 9/11 occurred. It is not yet clear who carried it out, who collaborated with them, and who paved the way for them. The event took place, and – like in the case of the Holocaust – they sealed it off, refusing to allow objective research groups to find out the truth. They invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, using 9/11 as a pretext."

again he isn't violent with this, although he does not condemn the attacks he doesn't show support for them either.

Again I hope I am not being offensive but this is something that has always bothered me. Is the U.S. still mad that they overthrew our puppet dictator?

I've heard quotes from him in the past and he actually sounds quite intelligent. I agreed with most of what I heard him say. He sounds more intelligent than Obama or Romney.

[Muwahid]

He's certainly not crazy. U.S. politicians have a goal of delegitimizing arguments made by certain people by portraying them as crazy, and it doesn't help that most people don't speak Farsi to understand, they have to just accept what they hear. But I feel Iran has it's interventionist moments, which it seems people don't want to admit sometimes, they did intervene in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and other places to further their ideology much like other nations do, Saudi Arabia gets flack for doing that as well, but some people demonize Iran / Ahmadinijad, and some people put them on a pedestal, as people standing up against imperialism! I like a more neutral position, when they speak against imperialism I'm with them, when they start meddling in international affairs I'm weary of them.

[John F Kennedy III]

He's a NWO puppet just like the rest of them.

Ahmadinejad calls for 'new world order' without nuclear monopoly (http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/ahmadinejad-calls-for-new-world-order-without-nuclear-monopoly-1.440363)

Thank you. I have no idea why I'm surprised.

[The Goat]

I'm sure he broke from his language when he said it too. just like when he said in perfect English "I want to get a nuke and wipe Israel of the map". lol

[The Goat]

Thank you. I have no idea why I'm surprised.



"new world order," he said through a Portuguese-speaking translator.

"This order would be based on compassion and justice, and in it, all humanity would be respected," he said, pointing out that in the world today, a small minority has the power to make decisions, without consideration for the needs of the majority.

Sounds exactly like the one H. W. Bush decribed doesn't it. XD

[RickyJ]

Should it be a crime to deny the holocaust?

There are some people that deny that the Earth is spherical, I don't see anyone trying to make that a crime.

Would someone that thinks the holocaust was exaggerated or didn't really happen at all be automatically labeled anti-Semitic? In many cases this is exactly what happens.

This should not be, people should be allowed to look at the available evidence and reach their own conclusions without being labeled a racist.

[phill4paul]

I like his name. It seems to roll once it is pronounced correctly.

[RickyJ]

I've heard quotes from him in the past and he actually sounds quite intelligent. I agreed with most of what I heard him say. He sounds more intelligent than Obama or Romney.

He is significantly more intelligent than either of them. Honestly, those two are retards compared to him.

[phill4paul]

He is significantly more intelligent than either of them. Honestly, those two are retards compared to him.

An intelligent talking head is still a talking head.

[squarepusher]

http://www.menas.co.uk/images/site/menas_news/photo/Mahmoud%20Ahmadinejad.jpg

[PierzStyx]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is just as bad in his way as Obama or Romney are in theirs. He is a corrupt authoritarian. In 2009 he won re-election by fraud, lying, and ballot boc stuffing on a level never seen in the United States against Mir-Hossein Mousavi Khameneh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mousavi)a man popular with the youth and masses because he wanted to bring greater amounts of liberty to the people, favored equal rights between men and women, and who wanted to privatize the media and news outlets. Sound like someone you might have heard of on this site?

To sum it up Ahmadinejad is the Romney/Obama of his country, where the shadow government rules openly in the form of the Supreme Leader. Ahmadinejad cheated Mousavi, the nearest thing Iranians have to a Ron Paul, out of an election he should have rightly won.

So no, I do not like Ahmadinejad. He is no lover of liberty.

[devil21]

I've always considered him the GWB of Iran, minus the ability to overthrow countries at will. Definitely not pulling the strings and not a dictator. Just a mouthpiece for bad policies while giving out guns and butter.

eta: There's a lot worse folks in the world that our gov't and media ignores completely.

[dillo]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is just as bad in his way as Obama or Romney are in theirs. He is a corrupt authoritarian. In 2009 he won re-election by fraud, lying, and ballot boc stuffing on a level never seen in the United States against Mir-Hossein Mousavi Khameneh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mousavi)a man popular with the youth and masses because he wanted to bring greater amounts of liberty to the people, favored equal rights between men and women, and who wanted to privatize the media and news outlets. Sound like someone you might have heard of on this site?

To sum it up Ahmadinejad is the Romney/Obama of his country, where the shadow government rules openly in the form of the Supreme Leader. Ahmadinejad cheated Mousavi, the nearest thing Iranians have to a Ron Paul, out of an election he should have rightly won.

So no, I do not like Ahmadinejad. He is no lover of liberty.

ill have to look into this fraud but I only ever herd that through the US news outlets so its probably highly fabricated because they hate the guy.

[John F Kennedy III]

Sounds exactly like the one H. W. Bush decribed doesn't it. XD

That's exactly what I was thinking.

[devil21]

I like his name. It seems to roll once it is pronounced correctly.

Reminds me of that great exchange in a 2008 debate when Romney said "sounds like Congressman Paul has to been reading too many press releases from Imadinnerjacked."

What was RP's reply? "Make fun buddy." You could tell he wanted to add that he'd kick Romney's ass somewhere down the road...

Ron Paul is always right.

ANYBODY HAVE THE VIDEO LINK? I've looked everywhere for a video with just the "make fun buddy" part and can't find one.

Heres a thread on it for the newbies.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?86390-Ron-Paul-quot-Make-it-fun-buddy.-quot-lt-I-LOVE-THIS-GUY!!/page3

[dillo]

Reminds me of that great exchange in a 2008 debate when Romney said "sounds like Congressman Paul has to been reading too many press releases from Imadinnerjacked."

What was RP's reply? "Make fun buddy." You could tell he wanted to add that he'd kick Romney's ass somewhere down the road...

Ron Paul is always right.

ANYBODY HAVE THE VIDEO LINK? I've looked everywhere for a video with just the "make fun buddy" part and can't find one.

Heres a thread on it for the newbies.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?86390-Ron-Paul-quot-Make-it-fun-buddy.-quot-lt-I-LOVE-THIS-GUY!!/page3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmRHPA8idcU

[DerailingDaTrain]

He sounds like a great guy if you ask me. /sarcasm

[shane77m]

http://noagendaartgenerator.com/sites/noagendaartgenerator.com/files/imagecache/fivetwelve/artsubs/DoctorA.png

[Liberty74]

Right! And I'm sure the anti-human dictator never said Iran doesn't have gays in his country during his visit to the Marxist Columbia a few years back.

We all know Iran hangs anyone simply being accused of being gay.

Stop defending the prick.

[ExPatPaki]

We all know Iran hangs anyone simply being accused of being gay.


Any evidence of this? In order to actually accuse someone of being gay, you need to have 4 witnesses who saw the act of gay sex occurring. I don't think there's a lot of gay public sex going on in Iran.

The most recent case of those two gay individuals being executed in Iran was more about rape then them being gay. Even gay rights groups and human rights groups attest to this.


Within weeks of the hangings, both reporters and human rights organizations - while continuing to condemn the brutality of the hangings - began to produce more nuanced accounts. Paula Ettelbrick, executive director of the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, told the press, “It was not a gay case”.[

The U.S. periodical The Nation published a lengthy investigation of the story. It criticized the role of Peter Tatchell and OutRage! in spreading the belief the executed youths were gay before it had examined the evidence. The article concluded that, given Peter Tatchell's "recent statements, it seems likely that his ideological disposition caused him to look past or dismiss information that cast doubt on the 'gay teenagers' story."[3]

Faisal Alam, founder of the lesbian and gay Muslim group Al-Fatiha Foundation, published an opinion piece claiming that:

"Very few people took the time to research the details of the case or even consult with experts who deal with such news on a daily basis. In fact it was almost a week later that we began to read more accurate accounts of why the teens were executed from international human rights groups including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission – all of whom have contacts in Iran and ways to confirm news of such incidents from independent sources. While no one will ever know why these two young men were executed in Iran, what remains clear is that the hysteria surrounding the executions was enormous and only fed to the growing Islamaphobia and hatred towards Muslims and the Islamic world."[14].

What Iran is truly guilty of, is providing state subsidized sex-change operations to transgendered individuals. So gay Muslims in Iran have the right to have sex-change operations on the tax-payers expense because their religious leaders made it a part of Sharia.

I have no problem with Iran executing rapists, gay or straight. I don't like that they execute drug offenders.

[moostraks]

A highly intelligent puppet with an agenda similar to but seperate from those who pull the strings in our own government. He is interesting to watch as he plays foil to our own government's agenda and theatrics. The biggest problem is for liberty minded folks who agree with his assessment of American policies then get branded as Iranian sympathizers who want to institute sharia law. Too many people cannot seem to differentiate between agreeing with the problem and yet seeking a different solution sperate from the messenger. This on the RP forum nonetheless...

[ExPatPaki]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is just as bad in his way as Obama or Romney are in theirs. He is a corrupt authoritarian. In 2009 he won re-election by fraud, lying, and ballot boc stuffing on a level never seen in the United States against Mir-Hossein Mousavi Khameneh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mousavi)a man popular with the youth and masses because he wanted to bring greater amounts of liberty to the people, favored equal rights between men and women, and who wanted to privatize the media and news outlets. Sound like someone you might have heard of on this site?

To sum it up Ahmadinejad is the Romney/Obama of his country, where the shadow government rules openly in the form of the Supreme Leader. Ahmadinejad cheated Mousavi, the nearest thing Iranians have to a Ron Paul, out of an election he should have rightly won.



So no, I do not like Ahmadinejad. He is no lover of liberty.

Mousavi was involved in the Marines Barracks attacks in Lebanon in 1983 which killed more than 200 American soldiers occupying Lebanon. Even if he was elected, he is not really in charge, the Supreme Leader, Khamanei is, and I doubt he would let him make any "reforms" since he didn't let Khatami do anything either.

During the protests in Iran, Wikileaks revealed that Ahmadinejad protested in a meeting and said that "the people were being suffocated", to which the leader of the Revolutionary Guards got up and slapped him on his face, showing him who is really in charge.

He has massive appeal, and I think he was far more popular in Iran than Mousavi. The University of Maryland did a post-election survey and found that Ahmadinejad was more popular than Mousavi and disputed the allegations of vote-rigging. I think his appeal is due to the fact that he is not like other Muslim leaders, he doesn't live in a presidential palace, he lives in a very modest house. He doesn't drive a nice BMW, but a beat up old car from the 1970s. He doesn't even sleep on a bed, but chooses to sleep on the floor because the Prophet Muhammad did it 1400 years ago.

Election fraud in Iran is unheard of. Iran's elected legislators have impeached ministers and dismissed the nominees of several Presidents, including Ahmadinejad. Khatami, one of the leading reformists in Iran, was elected president by the people, when the interior ministry was run by ultra-conservatives. He won with over 70 percent of the vote, not once, but twice.

It's very surprising that since 1980, Iran had a deadly 8 year war with Iraq, boycotts, embargoes, sanctions, assassinations of its lawmakers by the MKO (a terrorist group supported by the West), it still managed to never miss an election during the three decades since the revolution. Iran has elected more presidents than any in the world since 1980 and is the only one that held ten presidential elections within thirty years of its revolution.

And even I found this surprising. I was watching a discussion on PressTV English regarding the 2009 elections. Even on that station, the Western journalists were calling him a "dictator" and accusing him of being shady in the election.

[MelissaCato]

I kinda have a soft spot for him because .. does anyone remember back during the 2008 Ron Paul campaign - before even Russia Today picked up on Ron Paul - there was an Iranian News channel that did a nice english version promoting Ron Paul. Not the spoof that came later but the Iranian News channel ? Does anyone remember that ?

I do and I will never forget it either because it was the first news media coverage I seen in the 2008 campaign.

[Barrex]

No threat. He is not getting re-elected. Politician extremist like some guys in U.S. and in Croatia.... not worse not better.

[JK/SEA]

Maybe FOX could get him to be the 3rd judge on American Idol. I wonder if he can sing or something?...

[Muwahid]

I kinda have a soft spot for him because .. does anyone remember back during the 2008 Ron Paul campaign - before even Russia Today picked up on Ron Paul - there was an Iranian News channel that did a nice english version promoting Ron Paul. Not the spoof that came later but the Iranian News channel ? Does anyone remember that ?

I do and I will never forget it either because it was the first news media coverage I seen in the 2008 campaign.

To be fair its not exactly a hard choice promoting the one guy who says let's not bomb Iran.

[Kodaddy]

I have a friend who speaks Farsi. His family came to the US after the last Islamic revolution in the late 70's. He has no love for the current regime. However, he says that Mahmoud has been terribly mistranslated in respect to his comments on Israel. He says Mahmoud was merely quoting the ayatollah, and that it wasn't a threat to bomb Israel. What was said was that they wanted the oppressive Israeli regime to be erased from history. My friend compared the statement to someone in South Africa saying they wished aparthied never existed.
The neocons will lie to everyone to push their agenda.

[tttppp]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is just as bad in his way as Obama or Romney are in theirs. He is a corrupt authoritarian. In 2009 he won re-election by fraud, lying, and ballot boc stuffing on a level never seen in the United States against Mir-Hossein Mousavi Khameneh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mousavi)a man popular with the youth and masses because he wanted to bring greater amounts of liberty to the people, favored equal rights between men and women, and who wanted to privatize the media and news outlets. Sound like someone you might have heard of on this site?

To sum it up Ahmadinejad is the Romney/Obama of his country, where the shadow government rules openly in the form of the Supreme Leader. Ahmadinejad cheated Mousavi, the nearest thing Iranians have to a Ron Paul, out of an election he should have rightly won.

So no, I do not like Ahmadinejad. He is no lover of liberty.

American elections are rigged to. Something most Americans don't know.

[oyarde]

Well , he was a transportation engineer , his Dad changed the family name , he is really a Saborjhian ,he is the sixth president of the Islamic Republic of Iran ,his country is marxist , govt owns about everything, has an unemployment rate in the 20's , I suspect he truly is a devout twelver , has trouble making friends ......

[Brian Coulter]

Anyone who has the NWO's panties twisted in as tight a knot as he does can't be all bad. He's currently my favorite world leader.

[Miss Annie]

From what I can see,....... the problem is hate. He simply hates Israel. I am not going to say that Israel does not play a part in that,... as they don't want Iran to become nuclear capable. But Iran is always spouting how he is going to destroy Israel,.... so it seems they have a wee bit of a reason to be nervous.
Minding our own business would be a great start to the problem!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVSOOBQB6I0

[pcosmar]

From what I can see,....... the problem is hate. He simply hates Israel.

Incorrect. He hates Zionism. And I agree with him on that point.

I watch a few videos,, and heard him speak.
My observation,, he is intelligent, Articulate and Humble.
He also recognizes a true threat to his people and country.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNcaQ4k7VM8

[Miss Annie]

Incorrect. He hates Zionism. And I agree with him on that point.

I watch a few videos,, and heard him speak.
My observation,, he is intelligent, Articulate and Humble.
He also recognizes a true threat to his people and country.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNcaQ4k7VM8

Ok Pete,..... I know you have spent a lot of time splaining things to me since my arrival - and for this I am very grateful! :)
I watched the video that you posted,.... but I am not sure that I have a full understanding of the difference between Judaism and Zionism.
So, I am understanding that Jews themselves and "Israel" are not one in the same?
Is Zionism the term used to describe the taking back of the land?
My apologies for my ignorance. :confused:

[farreri]

I like Ahmadinejad in a sense because he tells it like it is when it comes to the actions of the U.S. govt, but then lies about the actions of his Iranian govt.

[heavenlyboy34]

American elections are rigged to. Something most Americans don't know.
qft.

[pcosmar]

My apologies for my ignorance. :confused:
No worry,, most folks do not understand the difference.
Ignorance can be corrected,,only stupidity is terminal. ;)

Zionism is a political ideology.. separated from Judaism. It is actually National Socialism.
The creators of Zionism were folks that rejected Judaism (and God, for that matter).
Zionism was denounced by Rabbi and scholar alike for years,,but the Zionist movement grew and was backed by some worlds powerful and wealthy.

There is an active effort to demonize any that speak against it today.
There are Jews that stand against it,
http://www.nkusa.org/aboutus/zionism/judaism_isnot_zionism.cfm
http://www.nkusa.org/aboutus/zionism/judaism_v_zionism.cfm

See Revelation 2:9

I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
and 3:9

Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you.

Some things are not as they seem.

[COpatriot]

Got Hannity on right now and he's talking about this guy. Ol' Great American Sean Hannity loves keep that war propaganda machine well-oiled. I almost hope Obama does bomb Iran just so I can hear Sean try to spin his idiot fans into believing that the war they wanted all-along is now a bad thing since it was started by a Democrat. If Romney wins, Hannity will be even more on board with the war effort than he is now.

[heavenlyboy34]

No worry,, most folks do not understand the difference.
Ignorance can be corrected,,only stupidity is terminal. ;)

Zionism is a political ideology.. separated from Judaism. It is actually National Socialism.
The creators of Zionism were folks that rejected Judaism (and God, for that matter).
Zionism was denounced by Rabbi and scholar alike for years,,but the Zionist movement grew and was backed by some worlds powerful and wealthy.

There is an active effort to demonize any that speak against it today.
http://www.nkusa.org/aboutus/zionism/judaism_isnot_zionism.cfm
http://www.nkusa.org/aboutus/zionism/judaism_v_zionism.cfm
Very true. I have found that most people don't understand zionism and will not even engage the topic rationally when it comes up. The commonest thing is to bring up the "anti-semite" red herring.

[farreri]

Got Hannity on right now and he's talking about this guy. Ol' Great American Sean Hannity loves keep that war propaganda machine well-oiled. I almost hope Obama does bomb Iran just so I can hear Sean try to spin his idiot fans into believing that the war they wanted all-along is now a bad thing since it was started by a Democrat. If Romney wins, Hannity will be even more on board with the war effort than he is now.
That's one of the many, many reasons I hate Republicans, they are always pushing for war, but if a Democrat initiates the war they were pushing, all of a sudden these same Republicans are against the intervention. It's like they fear being shown up by the "wimpy" Democrat.

[Anti Federalist]

'The Most Dangerous Man in the World'?

by Patrick J. Buchanan

http://lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan258.html

U.S. newspapers this fall will devote countless column inches and network TV will set aside endless hours to revisiting the most perilous month in the history of the republic, if not of the world.

Nikita Khrushchev's decision to secretly install nuclear-armed intermediate-range ballistic missiles in Cuba began to form in his mind sometime earlier, perhaps in April of 1961.

Then it was that the new young U.S. President John F. Kennedy put a brigade of Cubans ashore to become the vanguard of a guerrilla army to overthrow Fidel Castro's regime.

The Bay of Pigs became a metaphor for feckless folly and failure.

Khrushchev had ordered an army of tanks into Budapest to crush the Hungarian Revolution in 1956 and watched, astonished, as a U.S. president recoiled at using his power to expunge a Soviet base camp 90 miles from America's shores.

In June, Kennedy met Khrushchev in Vienna and was orally mauled. In August, Khrushchev tested Kennedy again, building a wall to sever East Berlin and seal off the Soviet sector. Berliners seeking to escape were shot.


Kennedy ordered a one-year call-up of the reserves.

Moscow then broke a moratorium on atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, exploding a 57-megaton monster bomb in the Arctic.

By mid-October 1962, Soviet missiles were in Cuba. Their 1,500-mile target radius put Washington, D.C., in range.


The Air Force chief of staff was Gen. Curtis LeMay, former head of Strategic Air Command, who boasted of his B-29 fleet in the Pacific war, "We torched and boiled and baked to death more people in Tokyo that night of March 9-10 than went up in vapor in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined."

LeMay wanted to bomb and invade Cuba, even after Khrushchev pulled his rockets out. When Mao Zedong denounced Khrushchev's climb-down, calling America "a paper tiger," Khrushchev is said to have reminded Mao, "This paper tiger has nuclear teeth."

Mao reportedly indicated a willingness to lose 300 million Chinese in a nuclear war if that war would finish off the United States.

These were grave times and dangerous men. What prompts this recitation of what our world was like 50 years ago is the latest cover story in The Weekly Standard, "The Most Dangerous Man in the World."

The cover photo is of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's "man with a mission," who is said to be seeking an atom bomb and who "loathes the United States more than Stalin, Mao, Tojo and Hitler combined." If this "supreme leader gets nuclear weapons, it will be a miracle if he does not stupidly lead his country into war."


Thrust of the 5,000-word article: Be afraid. Be very afraid of this man.

But what exactly are we to fear? And what is the imperative for war now on Iran, for which this piece beats the drum?

Khamenei has declared that nuclear weapons are immoral and Iran will never acquire them. Is Islamic Iran's supreme religious leader lying through his teeth? Where is the proof? Where is the hard evidence?


Sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies stated unanimously in 2007 and reaffirmed in 2011 their conviction that Iran does not have an active nuclear weapons program. In the Standard piece, John Sawyer, head of the British Intelligence Service MI-6, "flatly stated in July that we have two years left before the Iranians can build a weapon."

And if we should fear this most dangerous man in the world, why do not the Iraqis, Turks, Azerbaijanis and Pakistanis, his neighbors, seem to fear him? The Paks, with scores of nukes, seem less nervous about Iran than democratic India, with whom they have fought several wars.

Before now it has been Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who was the incarnation of Hitler. But Ahmadinejad's eight years in office are up next summer, and he is reportedly going back to teaching.

For all his bellicosity, how many wars did Ahmadinejad fight?

When was the last time Iran started any war?

On Al-Quds Day, Wednesday, an annual event since the 1979 revolution, Khamenei reportedly said he was confidant "the fake Zionist (regime) will disappear from the landscape of geography."

Yes, and Nikita Khrushchev said, "We will bury you," and, "Your grandchildren will live under communism." And we buried him, and his grandchildren saw the end to communism.

The author of the "Most Dangerous Man," Reuel Marc Gerecht, says that should Israel attack Iran, Iranians "will probably take their revenge through terrorism" or opt for "playing dead and railing against Israel in the court of world opinion."

Would Adolf Hitler or Hideki Tojo, pre-emptively attacked, respond with acts of reprisal untraceable to them, or denunciations of their attacker in the "court of world opinion," or by playing possum?

Our fathers crushed fascism in four years and outlasted for half a century the evil empires of Stalin and Mao that had murdered millions. And we should be fearful of an ayatollah?

What happened to the America we grew up in, the America of Truman, Ike, JFK and Reagan?

[Matt Collins]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axA-bFCDU3M

[jmdrake]

'The Most Dangerous Man in the World'?

by Patrick J. Buchanan

http://lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan258.html

...
These were grave times and dangerous men. What prompts this recitation of what our world was like 50 years ago is the latest cover story in The Weekly Standard, "The Most Dangerous Man in the World."

The cover photo is of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's "man with a mission," who is said to be seeking an atom bomb and who "loathes the United States more than Stalin, Mao, Tojo and Hitler combined." If this "supreme leader gets nuclear weapons, it will be a miracle if he does not stupidly lead his country into war."


Thrust of the 5,000-word article: Be afraid. Be very afraid of this man.

But what exactly are we to fear? And what is the imperative for war now on Iran, for which this piece beats the drum?

Khamenei has declared that nuclear weapons are immoral and Iran will never acquire them. Is Islamic Iran's supreme religious leader lying through his teeth? Where is the proof? Where is the hard evidence?


Sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies stated unanimously in 2007 and reaffirmed in 2011 their conviction that Iran does not have an active nuclear weapons program. In the Standard piece, John Sawyer, head of the British Intelligence Service MI-6, "flatly stated in July that we have two years left before the Iranians can build a weapon."


Ah. So now the MSM wants to admit what some of us have been saying for years. Ajmadinijad has never wielded real power in Iran. He's not the commander-in-chief of the armed forces and he can be replaced by the Supreme Leader. But here's some things they won't tell you.

1) The current supreme leader was also supreme leader when, under the moderate reformer president Mohammed Khatami, Iran sent to Bush through back channels a "grand bargain" proposal for peace.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/themes/grandbargain.html
A few weeks after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, a strange document arrived in Washington. It came as a fax, on plain paper, from the Swiss ambassador in Tehran.

The fax laid out the terms for a "grand bargain" -- in essence a peace treaty between the U.S. and Iran. It put everything on the table: Iran's support for terrorism, its nuclear program, even its hostility towards Israel. In exchange, Iran asked Washington for security guarantees, an end to sanctions and a promise never to push for regime change.

Iran's reformists were again trying to reach out to Washington, as they had after 9/11 (see Chapter 2 of the film). But the State Department thought Khatami's reformist government was politically weak and promising more than it could deliver. And the White House, newly victorious in Iraq, saw no need to negotiate with Iran. The fax never received a reply.

2) Iran also had been part of the U.S. led coalition to defeat the Taliban. They were the only Muslim country that actively participated.

India joins anti-Taliban coalition
By Rahul Bedi - Jane's - Intelligence Review 15 March 2001

India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a concerted front against Afghanistan's Taliban regime.
...
Intelligence sources in Delhi said that while India, Russia and Iran were leading the anti-Taliban campaign on the ground, Washington was giving the Northern Alliance information and logistic support. Oleg Chervov, deputy head of Russia's security council, recently described Taliban-controlled Afghanistan as a base of international terrorism attempting to expand into Central Asia. Radical Islamic groups are also trying to increase their influence across Pakistan, he said at a meeting of Indian and Russian security officials in Moscow. "All this dictates a pressing need for close co-operation between Russia and India in opposing terrorism," he said.

3) While the Supreme Leader can replace the president, the Assembly of Experts can replace the Supreme Leader. Reformers made early gains int AOE elections, but the hardliners have been strengthened U.S. anti-Iranian rhetoric heats up. It's the "rally around the troops" effect.

http://irannuclearwatch.blogspot.com/2006/12/partial-iranian-election-results.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2009/0604/obamas-speech-a-boost-to-moderates-in-irans-election

[Liberty74]

From what I can see,....... the problem is hate. He simply hates Israel. I am not going to say that Israel does not play a part in that,... as they don't want Iran to become nuclear capable. But Iran is always spouting how he is going to destroy Israel,.... so it seems they have a wee bit of a reason to be nervous.

Exactly but people in RPF honestly can't hear or refuse to listen. This is what Ahmadinejad said at a recent rally...


"The nations of the region will soon finish off the usurper Zionists in the Palestinian land.... A new Middle East will definitely be formed. With the grace of God and help of the nations, in the new Middle East there will be no trace of the Americans and Zionists" :eek:

Nope, he doesn't call for Israel to be destroyed. Are you freaking kidding me? Too many people in here are just deaf. Geez...

[jmdrake]

Exactly but people in RPF honestly can't hear or refuse to listen. This is what Ahmadinejad said at a recent rally...



Nope, he doesn't call for Israel to be destroyed. Are you freaking kidding me? Too many people in here are just deaf. Geez...

Except Amadinejad has no military power and never had any military power. The man with the power is the Supreme Leader. And he offered an olive branch to the U.S. and Israel back in 2003 and it was ignored by a power drunk Bush administration.

[QuickZ06]

I cant find the "make fun buddy" video anymore =(

[Wren]

I cant find the "make fun buddy" video anymore =(

yeah they took it down. I don't have high regard for ahmadinejad, but he's not the dangerous man the media makes him out to be. I particularly like this video, where he challenges Larry King on Israel. No different to what Europeans did to the original Indians.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L6ymWjNVjQ

[Liberty74]

Any evidence of this? In order to actually accuse someone of being gay, you need to have 4 witnesses who saw the act of gay sex occurring. I don't think there's a lot of gay public sex going on in Iran.

The most recent case of those two gay individuals being executed in Iran was more about rape then them being gay. Even gay rights groups and human rights groups attest to this.



Sure I can give you evidence...


Iran Human Rights, an independent NGO based in Norway, said the men were charged with "lavat" – sexual intercourse between two men. It is not clear whether the three men were homosexuals or merely smeared with homosexuality accused of being gay.

Source: Iran Executes Three Men On Homosexuality Charges. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/07/iran-executes-men-homosexuality-charges)

Another case:


In August 2010, an 18-year-old Iranian, Ebrahim Hamidi, a client of Mostafaei, faced execution on charges of homosexuality on the basis of "judge's knowledge" which is a legal loophole that allows for subjective judicial rulings where there is no conclusive evidence. Hamidi, who has been temporarily reprieved after his case drew widespread international attention, is not gay.

[DerailingDaTrain]

Can people please stop saying they like this guy? I can see the liberal media now:

"RP supporters say Iranian dictator is fine with them and since he hates Zionism he's an alright guy"

[Pericles]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is just as bad in his way as Obama or Romney are in theirs. He is a corrupt authoritarian. In 2009 he won re-election by fraud, lying, and ballot boc stuffing on a level never seen in the United States against Mir-Hossein Mousavi Khameneh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mousavi)a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mousavi%29a) man popular with the youth and masses because he wanted to bring greater amounts of liberty to the people, favored equal rights between men and women, and who wanted to privatize the media and news outlets. Sound like someone you might have heard of on this site?

To sum it up Ahmadinejad is the Romney/Obama of his country, where the shadow government rules openly in the form of the Supreme Leader. Ahmadinejad cheated Mousavi, the nearest thing Iranians have to a Ron Paul, out of an election he should have rightly won.

So no, I do not like Ahmadinejad. He is no lover of liberty.

Agree - he is an asshat first class.

[Liberty74]

Except Amadinejad has no military power and never had any military power. The man with the power is the Supreme Leader. And he offered an olive branch to the U.S. and Israel back in 2003 and it was ignored by a power drunk Bush administration.

Power or no power is not the argument here. The argument by many and the OP is that Ahmadinejad has never threatened Israel. The man absolutely has (see previous post with recent quote). When has Ahmadinejad told the Jews in general that they were in no serious harm or threat from Iran? When has he said, "I come in peace but I have a serious problem with the Zionist regime only?" When and where did he say such kind words to the Israelis?

[juleswin]

He's a NWO puppet just like the rest of them.

Ahmadinejad calls for 'new world order' without nuclear monopoly (http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/ahmadinejad-calls-for-new-world-order-without-nuclear-monopoly-1.440363)

You have to be a hardcore conspiracy theorist to believe he is NWO puppet. How the fuck does that work? and if he is a NWO puppet then who is not a NWO puppet? How anybody would believe any translation of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is beyond me and even if he was quoted accurately? I still wouldn't believe it. Everybody cant be part of the NWO, its not how it works

[jmdrake]

A highly intelligent puppet with an agenda similar to but seperate from those who pull the strings in our own government. He is interesting to watch as he plays foil to our own government's agenda and theatrics. The biggest problem is for liberty minded folks who agree with his assessment of American policies then get branded as Iranian sympathizers who want to institute sharia law. Too many people cannot seem to differentiate between agreeing with the problem and yet seeking a different solution sperate from the messenger. This on the RP forum nonetheless...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_7KRfu5FwfCM/S416rvKSZFI/AAAAAAAAABA/TYZLMx9MYGE/S660/attempt+at+hammer+meet+nail+logo+for+blog.png

[anaconda]

He's a NWO puppet just like the rest of them.

Ahmadinejad calls for 'new world order' without nuclear monopoly (http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/ahmadinejad-calls-for-new-world-order-without-nuclear-monopoly-1.440363)

So you see the words "New World Order" in the title of an Israeli news article and you assume that Ahmadinejad is part of the globalist banker conspiracy to dominate the planet? And since his remark about the "Israeli administration vanishing from the pages of time" was turned into "Iran wants to wipe Israel off the face of the map" and parroted with the most utter deceit by western media and politicians, perhaps we should not jump to the conclusion the "New World Order" is a correct translation in the body of this article? And, to the extent that we happen to trust the translation, why not analyze what he was purported to have said? Just because the anti-establishment crowd here uses the term "New World Order" to mean a corporatist and banker conspiracy, I don't believe we have a copyright on the term. In fact, it sounds like Ahmadinejad is referring to an order in the world that is quite the opposite. He objected to a small percentage of people making decisions for all of the rest. And that nuclear energy should be accessible to all nations and not prevented by a small clique of power mongers. My take on the translation was that his "New World Order" is simply the condition on the planet where bully imperialist nations run by cliques of offshore bankers simply butt out and allow the people of the world to function with more voluntary interaction and less centralization. It seems pretty clear to me that he is a real thorn in the side of western imperialists, because he will not allow western military bases in Iran, is not playing ball with central banking, is calling out Israel and the U.S. for what they are in the region, and is sitting on an ass load of oil that he seems to maybe want gold or euros for. So unless Ahmadinejad is some kind of Mossad or CIA plant that is supposed to play bad cop to the point of causing a western military invasion that can be sold to the western voters, then I am at a loss for your claim that he is a "NWO puppet."

[anaconda]

You have to be a hardcore conspiracy theorist to believe he is NWO puppet. How the fuck does that work? and if he is a NWO puppet then who is not a NWO puppet? How anybody would believe any translation of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is beyond me and even if he was quoted accurately? I still wouldn't believe it. Everybody cant be part of the NWO, its not how it works

^This. I wish I could be as clear and concise as you. Well said.

[jmdrake]

Power or no power is not the argument here.

It's my argument. People in other countries shouldn't get their undies in a knot when Pat Robertson threatens Hugo Chavez or John McCain threatens Iran since neither have the power TO declare or execute a war. The same is true of Amadinejad. He's not just a puppet in the "We all know Obama's just a puppet" sense. He's a puppet in that he really verifiably is a puppet. Iran tried to make peace with the U.S. I gave you just a smidgin of the evidence of that. When we made it clear we didn't want peace with Iran, Iran decided to go the strength track. The "let's make peace" puppet (Khatami) was put away and the "don't F with us" puppet was brought out. Iran isn't out to wipe out Israel or the U.S. Iran is about survival. Even Rick Santorum gets this, so I don't understand why you don't.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRW30b_51KY

[juleswin]

Right! And I'm sure the anti-human dictator never said Iran doesn't have gays in his country during his visit to the Marxist Columbia a few years back.

We all know Iran hangs anyone simply being accused of being gay.

Stop defending the prick.

He said they dont have gays like they have in the US. And as someone that have lived in a 1/2 dozen countries, I can tell you that this country has a significantly higher rate of gayness than most countries. I dont have enough information about gay hangings, so I cannot address that untill I get more information about it

[anaconda]

Agree - he is an asshat first class.

But he calls out the other crime families publicly. Even drops whopping truth bombs on a regular basis. This is valuable rhetoric. Because in terms of international isuues, the truth is on his side. That's a lot more than I can say for the western imperialist thugs.

[anaconda]

He's a puppet in that he really verifiably is a puppet. Iran tried to make peace with the U.S.

Who is Ahmandinejad's puppet master(s), in your assessment? Thank you.

[pcosmar]

Can people please stop saying they like this guy?

From all I have seen, I would like to have the guy over for a meal and conversation.

other than his political station,, I suspect we could get along.
And very likely agree on more than we disagree.
Sadly,,I believe that his country will be the next major war zone and millions of good people killed for the lusts and hatred of a few .

[juleswin]

^This. I wish I could be as clear and concise as you. Well said.

What are the chances our response to the same post followed each other? Anyway, I prefered your post better. It was well thought out, articulate and very hard to refute while mine was a rant written out of anger :)

Just wondering, why do u have Jimmy Carter as your avatar?

[anaconda]

http://www.menas.co.uk/images/site/menas_news/photo/Mahmoud%20Ahmadinejad.jpg

Looks like he could wipe Santorum off the map in a mountain bike ride. And might be able to keep up with RP.

[jmdrake]

Who is Ahmandinejad's puppet master(s), in your assessment? Thank you.

The real power broker is Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei. But his power is somewhat checked by the assembly of experts. Now I'm basing this only on what I can verify as fact. If there are "hidden" puppetmasters I do not know who they are or how they function.

The chart gives a good example of the Iranian power structure.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/iran_power/html/

Each box in the org chart is clickable. Note the powers of the Supreme Leader (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/iran_power/html/supreme_leader.stm) versus the power of the President (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/iran_power/html/president.stm).

[anaconda]

What are the chances our response to the same post followed each other? Anyway, I prefered your post better. It was well thought out, articulate and very hard to refute while mine was a rant written out of anger :)

Just wondering, why do u have Jimmy Carter as your avatar?

Your post did not sound angry to me. More of a tone of incredulity. I suspect we both hit the reply button within a narrow time proximity. That picture of Carter just always struck me as funny. And that the face of despotism need not look menacing. Or something like that. That people will vote for a giant, ever present grin over substantive policy. Satire. As a side note, I truly like some things about him. His position on the middle east, criticism of U.S. diplomacy failures, and I liked that he physically built homes for poor people for free (literally pounding nails and sawing 2 X 4's).

http://www.habitat.org/how/default_jcwp.aspx

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2059002/Jimmy-Carter-gets-hands-dirty-building-homes-Haiti.html

[anaconda]

The real power broker is Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei. But his power is somewhat checked by the assembly of experts. Now I'm basing this only on what I can verify as fact. If there are "hidden" puppetmasters I do not know who they are or how they function.

The chart gives a good example of the Iranian power structure.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/iran_power/html/

Each box in the org chart is clickable. Note the powers of the Supreme Leader (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/iran_power/html/supreme_leader.stm) versus the power of the President (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/iran_power/html/president.stm).

OK. I think I get it. You're saying he is a puppet of the Iranian power structure, not of the western imperialist banker power structure (like Hosni Mubarak and such folk that the CIA installs)?

[Liberty74]

Can people please stop saying they like this guy? I can see the liberal media now:

"RP supporters say Iranian dictator is fine with them and since he hates Zionism he's an alright guy"

There are some on both side of the aisle that want to blame the Jews (all 13 million of them worldwide) for the problems of the world. The loving Europeans still do in many segments of that continent.

Yes, there's a whopping 13 million Jews out of 7 billion people worldwide. To the 1.6 plus billion Muslims, STFU, you have more land mass and oil than you know what to do with. Get your act together, stop killing Christians in mass and stop blaming everything on the Jews. Maybe if the Palestinians didn't start the war of 1948, they would not have lost the "Arab state" of land which is about the size of Delaware. A lot of people forget that all the Arab states literally stole Jewish private property and then kicked them all (800,000) out of the Arab countries prior and after 1948. Yet zero sympathy there on innocent non-voilent Jews? Today, Arabs make up about 20% of the population in Israel or 1.5 million Arabs live there and get along for the most part. How many Jews live in Iran??? 9K "Persian Jews" if you can find them.

A brief history...

Israel, Palestine and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (Arab-Israeli Conflict) (http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm#The%20Jewish%20Kingdoms)

[dillo]

There are some on both side of the aisle that want to blame the Jews (all 13 million of them worldwide) for the problems of the world. The loving Europeans still do in many segments of that continent.

Yes, there's a whopping 13 million Jews out of 7 billion people worldwide. To the 1.6 plus billion Muslims, STFU, you have more land mass and oil than you know what to do with. Get your act together, stop killing Christians in mass and stop blaming everything on the Jews. Maybe if the Palestinians didn't start the war of 1948, they would not have lost the "Arab state" of land which is about the size of Delaware. A lot of people forget that all the Arab states literally stole Jewish private property and then kicked them all (800,000) out of the Arab countries prior and after 1948. Yet zero sympathy there on innocent non-voilent Jews? Today, Arabs make up about 20% of the population in Israel or 1.5 million Arabs live there and get along for the most part. How many Jews live in Iran??? 9K "Persian Jews" if you can find them.

A brief history...

Israel, Palestine and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (Arab-Israeli Conflict) (http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm#The%20Jewish%20Kingdoms)
Holy uninformed history Batman. Did you actually say Palestine invaded Israel?

[anaconda]

Maybe if the Palestinians didn't start the war of 1948, they would not have lost the "Arab state" [/URL]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks

[ExPatPaki]

To the 1.6 plus billion Muslims, STFU

The US government by killing Muslim children every single day is already telling Muslims to STFU. Yay America, kill those brown skin Muslims! It's perfectly okay for the US to kill Muslims because they follow Sharia, have brown skin color and are against Israel.

http://assets.openmuseum.org/data/pictures/000/007/381/medium/Dead_Iraqi_Baby.jpeg
http://dailyrevolution.com/saturday/Iraqbabies2.JPG
http://i.qkme.me/35k5iv.jpg
http://philebersole.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/drone-attacks-in-pakistan.jpg
http://www.citizenorange.com/orange/assets_c/2008/11/dead%20Afghan%20babies-thumb-300x211.jpg

These Muslims children have effectively STFU. Thank you America for killing Muslims for following Sharia. That will teach them to be born as Muslims. America killing Muslims by the millions is perfectly okay by you. 500,000 Iraqi children killed just by sanctions.

Also, it is not a Muslim issue. Israel has bombed churches in Lebanon too and the Palestinian resistance was led by Christians who did hijacking and kidnapping. The first suicide bomber in this conflict was also a Syrian Christian. He is seen as a martyr by both Arab Muslims and Christians.

[devil21]

If the goal of installing a western central bank into Iran and taking control of their resources (usually intertwined) are true then no way Mahmoud and the Ayatollah are NWO globalists. Why all the posturing and war propaganda then? The countries the West has been going after have all been countries with no Western central bank. After being overthrown a Western central bank is quickly installed.

I have seen reports/rumors that the war propaganda is meant to keep oil prices high though and both Western oil companies and Iran benefit greatly from that.

[ExPatPaki]

War Guilt in the Middle East

This originally appeared in Left and Right, Spring-Autumn 1967.

The trouble with sectarians, whether they be libertarians, Marxists, or world-governmentalists, is that they tend to rest content with the root cause of any problem and never bother themselves with the more detailed or proximate causes. The best, and almost ludicrous, example of blind, unintelligent sectarianism is the Socialist Labor Party, a venerable party with no impact whatsoever on American life. To any problem that the state of the world might pose – unemployment, automation, Vietnam, nuclear testing, or whatever – the SLP simply repeats, parrot-like: "Adopt socialism." Since capitalism is allegedly the root cause of all these and other problems, only socialism will whisk them away, period. In this way the sectarian, even if his spotting of the ultimate root cause should be correct, isolates himself from all problems of the real world and, in further irony, keeps himself from having any impact toward the ultimate goal he cherishes.

On the question of war guilt, whatever the war, sectarianism raises its ugly, uninformed head far beyond the stagnant reaches of the Socialist Labor Party. Libertarians, Marxists, world-governmentalists, each from their different perspective, have a built-in tendency to avoid bothering about the detailed pros and cons of any given conflict. Each of them knows that the root cause of war is the nation-state system; given the existence of this system, wars will always occur, and all states will share in that guilt. The libertarian, in particular, knows that states, without exception, aggress against their citizens, and knows also that in all wars each state aggresses against innocent civilians "belonging" to the other state.

Now this kind of insight into the root cause of war and aggression, and into the nature of the state itself, is all well and good, and vitally necessary for insight into the world condition. But the trouble is that the libertarian tends to stop there, and evading the responsibility of knowing what is going on in any specific war or international conflict, he tends to leap unjustifiably to the conclusion that, in any war, all states are equally guilty, and then to go about his business without giving the matter a second thought. In short, the libertarian (and the Marxist, and the world-government partisan) tends to dig himself into a comfortable "Third Camp" position, putting equal blame on all sides to any conflict, and letting it go at that. This is a comfortable position to take because it doesn’t really alienate the partisans of either side. Both sides in any war will write this man off as a hopelessly "idealistic" and out-of-it sectarian, a man who is even rather lovable because he simply parrots his "pure" position without informing himself or taking sides on whatever war is raging in the world. In short, both sides will tolerate the sectarian precisely because he is irrelevant, and because his irrelevancy guarantees that he makes no impact on the course of events or on public opinion about these events.

No: Libertarians must come to realize that parroting ultimate principles is not enough for coping with the real world. Just because all sides share in the ultimate state-guilt does not mean that all sides are equally guilty. On the contrary, in virtually every war, one side is far more guilty than the other, and on one side must be pinned the basic responsibility for aggression, for a drive for conquest, etc. But in order to find out which side to any war is the more guilty, we have to inform ourselves in depth about the history of that conflict, and that takes time and thought – and it also takes the ultimate willingness to become relevant by taking sides through pinning a greater degree of guilt on one side or the other.

So let us become relevant; and, with that in mind, let us examine the root historical causes of the chronic as well as the current acute crisis in the Middle East; and let us do this with a view to discovering and assessing the guilty.

The chronic Middle East crisis goes back – as do many crises – to World War I. The British, in return for mobilizing the Arab peoples against their oppressors of imperial Turkey, promised the Arabs their independence when the war was over. But, at the same time, the British government, with characteristic double-dealing, was promising Arab Palestine as a "National Home" for organized Zionism. These promises were not on the same moral plane: for in the former case, the Arabs were being promised their own land freed from Turkish domination; and in the latter, world Zionism was being promised a land most emphatically not its own. When World War I was over, the British unhesitatingly chose to keep the wrong promise, the one to world Zionism. Its choice was not difficult; if it had kept its promise to the Arabs, Great Britain would have had to pull gracefully out of the Middle East and turn that land over to its inhabitants; but, to fulfill its promise to Zionism, Britain had to remain as a conquering, imperial power ruling over Arab Palestine. That it chose the imperial course is hardly surprising.

We must, then, go back still further in history: for what was world Zionism? Before the French Revolution, the Jews of Europe had been largely encased in ghettoes, and there emerged from ghetto life a distinct Jewish cultural and ethnic (as well as religious) identity, with Yiddish as the common language (Hebrew being only the ancient language of religious ritual). After the French Revolution, the Jews of Western Europe were emancipated from ghetto life, and they then faced a choice of where to go from there. One group, the heirs of the Enlightenment, chose and advocated the choice of casting off narrow, parochial ghetto culture on behalf of assimilation into the culture and the environment of the Western world. While assimilationism was clearly the rational course in America and Western Europe, this route could not easily be followed in Eastern Europe, where the ghetto walls still held. In Eastern Europe, therefore, the Jews turned toward various movements for preservation of the Jewish ethnic and cultural identity. Most prevalent was Bundism, the viewpoint of the Jewish Bund, which advocated Jewish national self-determination, up to and including a Jewish state in the predominantly Jewish areas of Eastern Europe. (Thus, according to Bundism, the city of Vilna, in Eastern Europe, with a majority population of Jews, would be part of a newly-formed Jewish state.) Another, less powerful, group of Jews, the Territorialist Movement, despairing of the future of Jews in Eastern Europe, advocated preserving the Yiddish Jewish identity by forming Jewish colonies and communities (not states) in various unpopulated, virgin areas of the world.

Given the conditions of European Jewry in the late 19th and turn of the 20th centuries, all of these movements had a rational groundwork. The one Jewish movement that made no sense was Zionism, a movement which began blended with Jewish Territorialism. But while the Territorialists simply wanted to preserve Jewish-Yiddish identity in a newly developed land of their own, Zionism began to insist on a Jewish land in Palestine alone. The fact that Palestine was not a virgin land, but already occupied by an Arab peasantry, meant nothing to the ideologues of Zionism. Furthermore, the Zionists, far from hoping to preserve ghetto Yiddish culture, wished to bury it and to substitute a new culture and a new language based on an artificial secular expansion of ancient religious Hebrew.

In 1903, the British offered territory in Uganda for Jewish colonization, and the rejection of this offer by the Zionists polarized the Zionist and Territorialist movements, which previously had been fused together. From then on, the Zionists would be committed to the blood-and-soil mystique of Palestine, and Palestine alone, while the Territorialists would seek virgin land elsewhere in the world.

Because of the Arabs resident in Palestine, Zionism had to become in practice an ideology of conquest. After World War I, Great Britain seized control of Palestine and used its sovereign power to promote, encourage, and abet the expropriation of Arab lands for Zionist use and for Zionist immigration. Often old Turkish land titles would be dredged up and purchased cheaply, thus expropriating the Arab peasantry on behalf of European Zionist immigration. Into the heart of the peasant and nomadic Arab world of the Middle East there thus came as colonists, and on the backs and on the bayonets of British imperialism, a largely European colonizing people.

While Zionism was now committed to Palestine as a Jewish National Home, it was not yet committed to the aggrandizement of an independent Jewish state in Palestine. Indeed, only a minority of Zionists favored a Jewish state, and many of these had broken off from official Zionism, under the influence of Vladimir Jabotinsky, to form the Zionist-Revisionist movement to agitate for a Jewish state to rule historic ancient Palestine on both sides of the Jordan River. It is not surprising that Jabotinsky expressed great admiration for the militarism and the social philosophy of Mussolini’s fascism.

At the other wing of Zionism were the cultural Zionists, who opposed the idea of a political Jewish state. In particular, the Ihud (Unity) movement, centered around Martin Buber and a group of distinguished Jewish intellectuals from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, advocated, when the British should leave, a binational Jewish-Arab state in Palestine, with neither religious group to dominate the other, but both to work in peace and harmony to build the land of Palestine.

But the inner logic of Zionism was not to be brooked. In the tumultuous World Zionist convention at New York’s Hotel Biltmore in 1942, Zionism, for the first time, adopted the goal of a Jewish state in Palestine, and nothing less. The extremists had won out. From then on, there was to be permanent crisis in the Middle East.

Pressured from opposite sides by Zionists anxious for a Jewish state and by Arabs seeking an independent Palestine, the British finally decided to pull out after World War II and to turn the problem over to the United Nations. As the drive for a Jewish state intensified, the revered Dr. Judah Magnes, president of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and head of the Ihud movement, bitterly denounced "Zionist Totalitarianism," which, he charged, is trying to bring "the entire Jewish people under its influence by force and violence. I have not yet seen the Zionist terrorists called by their rightful names: Killers – brutalized men and women. … All Jews in America share in the guilt, even those not in accord with the activities of this new pagan leadership, but who sit at ease with folded hands…." Shortly afterward, Dr. Magnes felt it necessary to exile himself from Palestine and emigrate to the United States.

Under unbelievably intense pressure from the United States, the UN – including an enthusiastic U.S. and USSR – reluctantly approved a Palestine partition plan in November 1947, a plan that formed the basis of the British pullout and the Israel declaration of existence on May 15 of the following year. The partition plan granted the Jews, who had a negligible fraction of Palestine’s land, almost half the land area of the country. Zionism had succeeded in carving out a European Jewish state over Arab territory in the Middle East. But this is by no means all. The UN agreement had provided (a) that Jerusalem be internationalized under UN rule, and (b) that there be an economic union between the new Jewish and Arab Palestine states. These were the basic conditions under which the UN approved partition. Both were promptly and brusquely disregarded by Israel – thus launching an escalating series of aggressions against the Arabs of the Middle East.

While the British were still in Palestine, the Zionist paramilitary forces began to crush the Palestinian Arab armed forces in a series of civil war clashes. But, more fatefully, on April 9, 1948, the fanatical Zionist-Revisionist terrorists grouped in the organization Irgun Zvai Leumi massacred a hundred women and children in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. By the advent of Israel’s independence on May 15 the Palestinian Arabs, demoralized, were fleeing in panic from their homes and from the threat of massacre. The neighboring Arab states then sent in their troops. Historians are wont to describe the ensuing war as an invasion of Israel by the Arab states, heroically rebuffed by Israel, but since all of the fighting took place on Arab territory, this interpretation is clearly incorrect. What happened, in fact, is that Israel managed to seize large chunks of territory assigned to the Palestinian Arabs by the partition agreement, including the Arab areas of Western Galilee, Arab west-central Palestine as "corridor" to Jerusalem, and the Arab cities of Jaffa and Beersheba. The bulk of Jerusalem – the New City – was also seized by Israel and the UN internationalization plan discarded. The Arab armies were hampered by their own inefficiency and disunity and by a series of UN-imposed truces broken only long enough for Israel to occupy more Arab territory.

By the time of the permanent armistice agreement of Feb. 24, 1949, then, 600,000 Jews had created a state which had originally housed 850,000 Arabs (out of a total Palestinian Arab population of 1.2 million). Of these Arabs, three-quarters of a million had been driven out from their lands and homes, and the remaining remnant was subject to a harsh military rule which, two decades later, is still in force. The homes, lands, and bank accounts of the fleeing Arab refugees were promptly confiscated by Israel and handed over to Jewish immigrants. Israel has long claimed that the three-quarters of a million Arabs were not driven out by force but rather by their own unjustified panic induced by Arab leaders – but the key point is that everyone recognizes Israel’s adamant refusal to let these refugees return and reclaim the property taken from them. From that day to this, for two decades, these hapless Arab refugees, their ranks now swollen by natural increase to 1.3 million, have continued to live in utter destitution in refugee camps around the Israeli borders, barely kept alive by meager UN funds and CARE packages, living only for the day when they will return to their rightful homes.

In the areas of Palestine originally assigned to the Arabs, no Palestinian Arab government remained. The acknowledged leader of the Palestinian Arabs, their Grand Mufti Haj Amin el-Husseini, was summarily deposed by the longtime British tool, King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan, who simply confiscated the Arab regions of east-central Palestine, as well as the Old City of Jerusalem. (King Abdullah’s Arab Legion had been built, armed, staffed, and even headed by such colonialist British officers as Glubb Pasha.)

On the Arab refugees, Israel takes the attitude that the taxpayers of the world (i.e., largely the taxpayers of the United States) should kick in to finance a vast scheme to resettle the Palestinian refugees somewhere in the Middle East – i.e., somewhere far from Israel. The refugees, however, understandably have no interest in being resettled; they want their own homes and properties back, period.

The armistice agreement of 1949 was supposed to be policed by a series of Mixed Armistice Commissions, composed of Israel and her Arab neighbors. Very soon, however, Israel dissolved the Mixed Armistice Commissions and began to encroach upon more and more Arab territory. Thus, the officially demilitarized zone of El Auja was summarily seized by Israel.

Since the Middle East was still technically in a state of war (there was an armistice but no treaty of peace), Egypt, from 1949 on, continued to block the Strait of Tiran – the entrance to the Gulf of Aqaba – to all Israeli shipping and to all trade with Israel. In view of the importance of the blocking of the Gulf of Aqaba in the 1967 war, it is important to remember that nobody griped at this Egyptian action: nobody said that Egypt was violating international law by closing this "peaceful international waterway." (Making any waterway open to all nations, according to international law, requires two conditions: (a) consent by the powers abutting on the waterway, and (b) no state of war existing between any powers on the waterway. Neither of these conditions obtained for the Gulf of Aqaba: Egypt has never consented to such an agreement, and Israel has been in a state of war with Egypt since 1949, so that Egypt blocked the Gulf to Israeli shipping unchallenged from 1949 on.)

Israel’s history of continuing aggression had only begun. Seven years later, in 1956, Israel, conjoined to British and French imperialist armies, jointly invaded Egypt. And oh how proudly Israel consciously imitated Nazi blitzkrieg and sneak-attack tactics! And oh how ironic that the very same American Establishment that had for years denounced Nazi blitzkriegs and sneak-attacks was suddenly lost in admiration for the very same tactics employed by Israel! But in this case, the United States, momentarily abandoning its intense and continued devotion to the Israeli cause, joined with Russia in forcing the combined aggressors back from Egyptian soil. But Israel did not agree to pull its forces out of the Sinai Peninsula until Egypt agreed to allow a special UN Emergency Force to administer the Sharm-el Sheikh fortress commanding the Strait of Tiran. Characteristically, Israel scornfully refused the UNEF permission to patrol its side of the border. Only Egypt agreed to allow access to the UN forces, and it was because of this that the Gulf of Aqaba was opened to Israeli shipping from 1956 on.

The 1967 crisis emerged from the fact that, over the last few years, the Palestinian Arab refugees have begun to shift from their previous bleak and passive despair and begun to form guerrilla movements which have infiltrated the Israeli borders to carry their fight into the region of their lost homes. Since last year, Syria has been under the control of the most militantly anti-imperialist government that the Middle East has seen in years. Syria’s encouragement to the Palestinian guerrilla forces led Israel’s frenetic leaders to threaten war upon Syria and the conquest of Damascus – threats punctuated by severe reprisal raids against Syrian and Jordanian villages. At this point Egypt’s premier, Gamal Abdel Nasser, who had been an anti-Israel blowhard for years, but had concentrated instead on demagogic, statist measures that wrecked Egypt’s domestic economy, was challenged by the Syrians to do something concrete to help: in particular, to end UNEF control – and hence continuing Israeli shipping – in the Gulf of Aqaba. Hence, Nasser’s request for the UNEF to leave. Pro-Israeli griping at U Thant’s swift compliance is grotesque, when we consider that the UN forces were there only at Egyptian request, and that Israel has always adamantly refused to have the UN forces on its side of the border. It was at that point, with the closing of the Strait of Tiran, that Israel evidently began to set the stage for its next blitzkrieg war.

While giving lip-service to peaceful negotiation, the Israeli government finally knuckled under to "hawk" pressure within the country, and the appointment of the notoriously warmongering Gen. Moshe Dayan as minister of defense was obviously the signal for the Israeli blitz attack that came a few days later. The incredibly swift Israeli victories; the press glorification of Israeli tactics and strategy; the patent unreadiness of the Arab forces despite the hoopla; all this indicates to all but the most naive the fact that Israel launched the war of 1967 – a fact that Israel scarcely bothers to deny.

One of the most repellent aspects of the 1967 slaughter is the outspoken admiration for the Israeli conquest by almost all Americans, Jew and non-Jew alike. There seems to be a sickness deep in the American soul that causes it to identify with aggression and mass murder – the swifter and more brutal the better. In all the spate of admiration for the Israeli march, how many people were there to mourn the thousands of innocent Arab civilians murdered by the Israeli use of napalm? As for Jewish chauvinism among so-called "antiwar" people on the Left, there is no more sickening demonstration of a total lack of humanity than that displayed by Margot Hentoff in the left-liberal Village Voice:

"Is there any war you DO like? If so, are you Jewish? Lucky. What a time to be Jewish. Have you ever known any Jewish pacifists? Did you know any last week? … Besides, this was a different war – an old kind of war, a kind of war in which death was life-giving and Arab deaths didn’t count. What a pleasure to be, once again, in favor of a war. What a good clean wholesome feeling to cheer those jeeps careening across the television screen filled with tough, lean, hard-faced, gun-bearing, JEWISH soldiers.

"’Look at them go! WOW! ZAP! Nothing’s gonna stop them now!’ said an old time radical pacifist. ‘This is an army of Jews!’

"Another (whose major contribution to Judaism until now has been to write articles disowning Israel and announcing that Judaism is dead and deserves to be) spent the week confusing his nationality. ‘How are we doing?’ he kept asking. ‘How far have we gotten now?’"

What-a "clean wholesome feeling” indeed when "Arab deaths don’t count!" Is there any difference at all between this kind of attitude and that of the Nazi persecutors of the Jews whom our press has been attacking, day in and day out, for well over twenty years?

When this war began, the Israeli leaders proclaimed that they were not interested in "one inch" of territory; their fighting was purely defensive. But now that Israel sits upon its conquests, after repeated violations of UN cease-fires, it sings a very different tune. Its forces still occupy all of the Sinai Peninsula; all of Palestinian Jordan has been seized, sending another nearly 200,000 hapless Arab refugees to join their hundreds of thousands of forlorn comrades; it has seized a goodly chunk of Syria; and Israel arrogantly proclaims that it will never, never return the Old City of Jerusalem or internationalize it; Israeli seizure of all of Jerusalem is simply "not negotiable."

If Israel has been the aggressor in the Middle East, the role of the United States in all this has been even more unlovely. The hypocrisy of the U.S. position is almost unbelievable – or would be if we were not familiar with U.S. foreign policy over the decades. When the war first began , and it looked for a moment as if Israel were in danger, the U.S. rushed in to avow its dedication to the "territorial integrity of the Middle East" – as if the borders of 1949-67 were somehow embalmed in Holy Writ and had to be preserved at all costs. But – as soon as it was clear that Israel had won and conquered once again, America swiftly shed its supposed cherished "principles." Now there is no more talk of the "territorial integrity of the Middle East"; now it is all "realism" and the absurdity of going back to obsolete status quo borders and the necessity for the Arabs to accept a general settlement in the Middle East, etc. How much more evidence do we need that an approving United States has always stayed in the wings, ready to come to the aid of Israel if necessary? How much more evidence do we need that Israel is now the ally and satellite of the U.S., which in the Middle East as in so many other areas of the world has assumed the mantle once worn by British imperialism?

The one thing that Americans must not be lured into believing is that Israel is a "little" "underdog" against its mighty Arab neighbors. Israel is a European nation with a European technological standard battling a primitive and undeveloped foe; furthermore, Israel has behind it, feeding it, and financing it the massed might of countless Americans and West Europeans, as well as the Leviathan governments of the United States and its numerous allies and client states. Israel is no more a "gallant underdog" because of numerical inferiority than British imperialism was a "gallant underdog" when it conquered far more populous lands in India, Africa, and Asia.

And so, Israel now sits, occupying its swollen territory, pulverizing houses and villages containing snipers, outlawing strikes of Arabs, killing Arab youths in the name of checking terrorism. But this very occupation, this very elephantiasis of Israel, provides the Arabs with a powerful long-range opportunity. In the first place, as the militant anti-imperialist regimes of Syria and Algeria now see, the Arabs can shift their strategic emphasis from hopeless conventional war with a far better armed foe to a protracted mass people’s guerrilla war. Armed with light weapons, the Arab people could carry out another "Vietnam," another "Algeria" – another people’s guerrilla war against a heavily armed occupying army. Of course, this is a long-run threat only, because to carry it out the Arabs would have to overthrow all of their stagnant, reactionary monarchies and form a united pan-Arab nation – for the splits into nation-states in the Arab world are the consequence of the artificial machinations and depredations of British and French imperialism. But for the long run, the threat is very real.

Israel, therefore, faces a long-run dilemma which she must someday meet. Either to continue on her present course and, after years of mutual hostility and conflict be overthrown by Arab people’s guerrilla war. Or – to change direction drastically, to cut herself loose completely from Western imperial ties, and become simply Jewish citizens of the Middle East. If she did that, then peace and harmony and justice would at last reign in that tortured region. There is ample precedent for this peaceful coexistence. For in the centuries before 19th- and 20th-century Western imperialism, Jew and Arab had always lived well and peacefully together in the Middle East. There is no inherent enmity or conflict between Arab and Jew. In the great centuries of Arab civilization in North Africa and Spain, Jews took a happy and prominent part – in contrast to their ongoing persecution by the fanatics of the Christian West. Shorn of Western influence and Western imperialism, that harmony can reign once more.

[dillo]

When you read zionist opinIons it makes you realize who the real terrorists are.

[Brett85]

I would think that you could oppose war with Iran and oppose intervention in Iran without praising someone like Ahmadinejad, but maybe I'm wrong.

[dillo]

I would think that you could oppose war with Iran and oppose intervention in Iran without praising someone like Ahmadinejad, but maybe I'm wrong.

I don't praise him but he would be a better ally them Israel. I also trust a nuclear Iran way more then a nuclear Israel

[Wren]

I would think that you could oppose war with Iran and oppose intervention in Iran without praising someone like Ahmadinejad, but maybe I'm wrong.

I think he's said some reasonable things and that deserves praise. That doesn't make him a saint. But it's important to expose media lies. There is no either/or.

[Tudo]

He's not the best, he's not the worst, is no threat to me, my family, your family. There is no legitimate reason for the continuous sanctions/acts of war against persians. The US still believes in locking people in cages and wrecking their lives for simply using a natural herb to help them deal with medical illnesses. I think a place like that has no standing in critisizing any other countries human rights. Look within for answers.

[pcosmar]

I don't praise him but he would be a better ally them Israel. I also trust a nuclear Iran way more then a nuclear Israel

Inclined to agree with that assessment.
Diplomacy should be opening trade with Iran,, not imposing sanctions.

[ExPatPaki]

The US still believes in locking people in cages and wrecking their lives

Now without the silly things like trials and due process. At least in Iran, there are trials for the accused.

The US government doesn't hold trials for any of the Muslim children it kills.

[heavenlyboy34]

Now without the silly things like trials and due process. At least in Iran, there are trials for the accused.

The US government doesn't hold trials for any of the Muslim children it kills.
Are these serious, fair trials or show trials? (no offense intended-I'm genuinely curious)

[jmdrake]

OK. I think I get it. You're saying he is a puppet of the Iranian power structure, not of the western imperialist banker power structure (like Hosni Mubarak and such folk that the CIA installs)?

Exactly! Sorry for being unclear. If some western imperialist banker is pulling Amadinejad's strings he has to pull the Supreme Leader's strings first. ;)

[ExPatPaki]

Are these serious, fair trials or show trials? (no offense intended-I'm genuinely curious)

I am not one to judge whether there are fair or not. All I know that the defense always has attorneys. The information that comes out of Iran is always badly managed and mistranslated. Such as the people getting killed for being gay. It's not just because they are gay, the other charges are usually robbery and rape.

http://en.irangreenvoice.com/sites/default/files/25/gitmo_cartoom.jpg

[jmdrake]

I would think that you could oppose war with Iran and oppose intervention in Iran without praising someone like Ahmadinejad, but maybe I'm wrong.

Which is why I point out how irrelevant the president of Iran is as opposed to trying to prove that he's "not that bad". The bottom line for me is that the Iranian power structure has proven, to me at least, that it is not suicidal. When Pakistan secretly offered Iran nuclear weapons technology, Iran turned Pakistan down. If Iran's singular goal was to get a bomb as quick as possible to nuke Israel, why would they turn one down when it was right in their grasp?

[ExPatPaki]

The bottom line for me is that the Iranian power structure has proven, to me at least, that it is not suicidal.

It is said that the Iranian leadership wasn't too happy with Hezbollah for provoking Israel that started the 2006 Lebanon war.

[BucksforPaul]

I am not one to judge whether there are fair or not. All I know that the defense always has attorneys. The information that comes out of Iran is always badly managed and mistranslated. Such as the people getting killed for being gay. It's not just because they are gay, the other charges are usually robbery and rape.

http://en.irangreenvoice.com/sites/default/files/25/gitmo_cartoom.jpg

I remember back in 2010 there was a guy in Iran on trial for raping a male child, but the Western "media" reported the case as the guy being on trial for being gay. These fucks did not care that a child was raped and instead spun the story to condition the people to accept the upcoming genocide of Iranians. Never let a good opportunity go to waste even if it comes at the expense of children. Of course, my point is moot to these "mainstream media" parrots who simply believe that Iranians and every other Muslim are not human and it is okay to kill 'em all.

[ExPatPaki]

..

[ExPatPaki]

^ Exactly. This thread proves that some posters are brainwashed mental patients when it comes to Muslims and Iran. They simply want to kill Muslims because Muslims have justifiable grievances against Israel. But its not surprising at all that the western media would take the side the rapist and not give a shit of the raped baby. This stems from their hatred of Muslim children

[LS4702]

I admit I have not read all the comments, but to answer the question.... I think MA is smarter than we give him credit. He is also pretty cool under pressure, maybe because he has not so much to hide as some other governments that are pressing him. I am sure he is not innocent, but hey, the guy has a set doesn't he?

[devil21]

Right or wrong, Mahmoud was directly involved in the hostage fiasco. Probably why he's pretty cool under pressure. Can't say the same about most of our Presidents. The ones that dodged drafts and fled to France and whatever at the first sign of fighting.

[Brett85]

This thread proves that some posters are brainwashed mental patients when it comes to Muslims and Iran. They simply want to kill Muslims because Muslims have justifiable grievances against Israel.

Nobody in this thread advocated "killing Muslims." You're just making stuff up as usual.

[anaconda]

Never let a good opportunity go to waste even if it comes at the expense of children.

With Bill Clinton, every piece of legislation was "for the children."

[anaconda]

I think MA is smarter than we give him credit.

I never discredited his smarts. Seems his foreign policy is consistent with Dr. Paul's.

[Cutlerzzz]

^ Exactly. This thread proves that some posters are brainwashed mental patients when it comes to Muslims and Iran. They simply want to kill Muslims because Muslims have justifiable grievances against Israel. But its not surprising at all that the western media would take the side the rapist and not give a shit of the raped baby. This stems from their hatred of Muslim children

Aren't you the guy who said that all Muslims who convert to other religions need to executed?

Edit: Yeah, you are.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?277730-Glenn-Beck-lifts-caliphate-to-the-top-of-Google-Trends-with-conspiracy-theory&p=3092813&viewfull=1#post3092813

[BucksforPaul]

With Bill Clinton, every piece of legislation was "for the children."

Yes you are right and the same can be said for Bush with his All children Left Behind fiasco. We know that politicians will use the Children to ram through horrible legislation with the full support of the Mainstream Liars, However, when it comes to killing millions of children in other parts of the world not a single peep from these same evil fucks.

P.S. Would anyone like to start a chip in to send flowers to the Iraqi families who lost their children due to sanctions or large bombs dropped from above?

[Hyperion]

With Bill Clinton, every piece of legislation was "for the children."

And in a terrible twist of fate 'the children' were also targeted in Mr. Clinton's false flag terror attack in OKC.

[dillo]

And in a terrible twist of fate 'the children' were also targeted in Mr. Clinton's false flag terror attack in OKC.

the government doesnt have a stop button

[RickyJ]

And in a terrible twist of fate 'the children' were also targeted in Mr. Clinton's false flag terror attack in OKC.

They care nothing about kids, that is why they sacred a six year old to death by invading his home and pointing a machine gun at him then kidnapping him and sending him back to Cuba. When they did that to Elian Gonzalez and many cheered it on, conservative and liberals, I knew America was all but finished.

http://www.belch.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/elian.jpg

[DerailingDaTrain]

I am not one to judge whether there are fair or not. All I know that the defense always has attorneys. The information that comes out of Iran is always badly managed and mistranslated. Such as the people getting killed for being gay. It's not just because they are gay, the other charges are usually robbery and rape.


Sodomy (lavat) can in certain circumstances be a crime for which both partners can in theory be punished by death. If the participants are adults, of sound mind and consenting; the method of execution is for the judge to decide.

It's punishable by death although sometimes the sentence is more "light" like a lengthy prison sentence. Stop acting like Iran is the greatest country in the world (except for the government sanctioned sex change operations apparently)

If you're a teen and you have sex you only get 74 lashes.


A non-adult who engages in consensual sodomy is subject to a punishment of 74 lashes. (Articles 108 to 113) Sodomy is proved either if a person confesses four times to having committed sodomy or by the testimony of four righteous men.



The punishment for lesbianism (mosahegheh) involving persons who are mature, of sound mind, and consenting, is 100 lashes. If the act is repeated three times and punishment is enforced each time, the death sentence will apply on the fourth occasion. (Articles 127, 129, 130)


Women who "stand naked under one cover without necessity" and are not relatives may receive a punishment of 100 lashes. (Article 134)


On January 23, 2008, Hamzeh Chavi, 18, and Loghman Hamzehpour, 19, were arrested in Sardasht, in Iranian Azerbaijan for homosexuality. An on-line petition for their release began to circulate around the internet. They apparently confessed to the authorities that they were in a relationship and in love, prompting a court to charge them with Moharebeh ("waging war against God") and Lavat (sodomy).


There were two reported crackdowns in Esfahān (also spelled "Isfahan"), Iran's third-largest city. On May 10, 2007, Esfahān police arrested 87 people at a birthday party, including 80 suspected gay men, beating and detaining them through the weekend. All but 17 of the men were released; those who remained in custody were believed to have been wearing women's clothing. Photos of the beaten men were released by the Toronto-based Iranian Railroad for ***** Refugees. According to Human Rights Watch, in February 2008 police in Esfhan raided a party in a private home and arrested 30 men, who were held indefinitely without a lawyer on suspicion of homosexuality.

[ExPatPaki]

Aren't you the guy who said that all Muslims who convert to other religions need to executed?


Me and all those Muslim children killed by American bombs also believe that since it is a part of Sharia. FUCK YA AMERICA, Kill those Muslim children for believing in their religion.

At least when someone is accused of apostasy in Islam, there is a trial.

Did America ever hold a trial for any Muslim child that it killed?

[ExPatPaki]

P.S. Would anyone like to start a chip in to send flowers to the Iraqi families who lost their children due to sanctions or large bombs dropped from above?

crickets on this forum. They would rather talk about gays in Iran.

[thequietkid10]

Any evidence of this? In order to actually accuse someone of being gay, you need to have 4 witnesses who saw the act of gay sex occurring. I don't think there's a lot of gay public sex going on in Iran.

The most recent case of those two gay individuals being executed in Iran was more about rape then them being gay. Even gay rights groups and human rights groups attest to this.

.

What Iran is truly guilty of, is providing state subsidized sex-change operations to transgendered individuals. So gay Muslims in Iran have the right to have sex-change operations on the tax-payers expense because their religious leaders made it a part of Sharia.

I have no problem with Iran executing rapists, gay or straight. I don't like that they execute drug offenders.

Ahmadinejad just said a couple of years ago at Columbia University "we don't have gays in our country" Now why would he say that. It won't be because Shi'ite Muslims are genetically immune from homosexuality!

[ExPatPaki]

Ahmadinejad just said a couple of years ago at Columbia University "we don't have gays in our country"!

I believe he said we don't have gays in our country LIKE you do in America.

Meaning the gays in Iran don't act the way the gays in America do. They are transgendered people who receive state subsidized sex-change operations.

They are some gay pedophiles who rape babies in Iran who garner sympathy in the western media, since the western media doesn't like Muslim children and wants to see them suffer.

[juleswin]

crickets on this forum. They would rather talk about gays in Iran.

Not fair, for one everyone knows that it wasn't a serious question. If bucksforpaul was really serious about it, he will set the charity and then ask for donations. Add to that the fact that most people are tapped out from donating during the campaign season.

The 2-3 people only concerned about the alleged gay handings in Iran are clearly in the minority, most people here know the M$M manipulates information all the time to smear opponents of the establishment. Its hard to believe that a country that allows openly gay groups and people, Jewish communities and temples will just decide to kill some gay people and not the others. Iran is nothing like Saudi Arabia

Btw I will donate if I thought it was actually a serious attempt to help those who our country harmed

[juleswin]

I believe he said we don't have gays in our country LIKE you do in America.

Meaning the gays in Iran don't act the way the gays in America do. They are transgendered people who receive state subsidized sex-change operations.

They are some gay pedophiles who rape babies in Iran who garner sympathy in the western media, since the western media doesn't like Muslim children and wants to see them suffer.

That is exactly how I understood his statement. LIKE is the key word opponents of Iran are missing.

[thequietkid10]

That is exactly how I understood his statement. LIKE is the key word opponents of Iran are missing.

wait WHAT? I just watched the video, that's not what I got...at all. Immediately after he said "we don't have gays in our country like in your" he said "We don't have that in our country"

Then he gets laughed at/booed at. And instead of backtracking and saying "I'm not saying we don't have homosexual people in our country" he says "we don't have this phenomon in our country"

Homosexuality isn't a "phenomenon" it's not what you see at Gay pride parades. Several of my close friends are gay or lesbian, and they are all different. If you think it is, I suggest you leave your cabin in the woods more often and meet other people.

[ExPatPaki]

wait WHAT? I just watched the video

who translated the video?

[juleswin]

wait WHAT? I just watched the video, that's not what I got...at all. Immediately after he said "we don't have gays in our country like you do in America" he said "We don't have that in our country"

Then he gets laughed at/booed at. And instead of backtracking and saying "I'm not saying we don't have homosexual people in our country" he says "we don't have this phenomon in our country"

Homosexuality isn't a "phenomenon" it's not what you see at Gay pride parades. Several of my close friends are gay or lesbian, and they are all different. If you think it is, I suggest you leave your cabin in the woods more often and meet other people.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-sC26wpUGQ

Again the quote is "we don't have homosexuals LIKE in your country". Some people understand it as meaning we have no homosexuals period in Iran while other interpret it as gays in Iran are not as flamboyant and open like the gays you have in the US. I think you know which I belief he meant.

[thequietkid10]

crickets on this forum. They would rather talk about gays in Iran.

Are you serious? This is a Ron Paul forum, do you really think ANYONE here needs to be lectured about how screwed up the Iraq war is? What's next, your going to make us justify our opposition to cooperate welfare?

Non interventionism doesn't justify anything. It explains it. Yes the Iraq war sanctions were horrible, yes they were wrong, but it doesn't make 9/11 right (at least the twin towers). It doesn't make the invasion of Kuwait right, and it sure as hell doesn't mean that Ahmadinejad and is country is some shining figure we should all aspire to.

[thequietkid10]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-sC26wpUGQ

Again the quote is "we don't have homosexuals LIKE in your country". Some people understand it as meaning we have no homosexuals period in Iran while other interpret it as gays in Iran are not as flamboyant and open like the gays you have in the US. I think you know which I belief he meant.

It could probably go either way, I suppose. But in context I lean towards the later. I also note he originally filibustered the question for several minutes, avoiding the subject of gays entirely.

[thequietkid10]

oh by the way

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/brutal-land-where-homosexuality-is-punishable-by-death-792057.html

...unless Amnesty International is some secret globalist plot too

[ExPatPaki]

Are you serious? Yes the Iraq war sanctions were horrible, yes they were wrong, but it doesn't make 9/11 right (at least the twin towers)

Of course 9/11 was horrible. That's why the US had to wage war on a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 which killed over a million plus people.

[ExPatPaki]

...unless Amnesty International is some secret globalist plot too

Amnesty’s Shilling for US Wars

Posted By Coleen Rowley On June 21, 2012 (http://original.antiwar.com/colleen-rowley/2012/06/21/amnestys-shilling-for-us-wars/print/)

The new Executive Director of Amnesty International USA – Suzanne Nossel – is a recent U.S. government insider. So it’s a safe bet that AI’s decision to seize upon a topic that dovetailed with American foreign policy interests, "women’s rights in Afghanistan," at the NATO Conference last month in Chicago came directly from her.

Nossel was hired by AI in January 2012. In her early career, Nossel worked for Ambassador Richard Holbrooke under the Clinton Administration at the United Nations. Most recently, she served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Organizations at the U.S. Department of State, where she was responsible for multilateral human rights, humanitarian affairs, women’s issues, public diplomacy, press and congressional relations.

She also played a leading role in U.S. engagement at the U.N. Human Rights Council (where her views about the original Goldstone Report on behalf of Palestinian women did not quite rise to the same level of concerns for the women in countries that U.S.-NATO has attacked militarily).

Nossel would have worked for and with Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Samantha Power and Susan Rice, and undoubtedly helped them successfully implement their "Right to Protect (R2P)" – otherwise known as "humanitarian intervention" – as well as the newly created "Atrocity Prevention Board."

This cornerstone of President Barack Obama’s foreign policy (which has served mainly to rationalize the launching of war on Libya) is now being hauled out to call for U.S.-NATO military intervention in Syria.

"Smart Power" = smart wars?

In fact, Nossel is herself credited as having coined the term "Smart Power," which embraces the United States’ use of military power as well as other forms of "soft power," an approach which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced at her confirmation as the new basis of State Department policy.

An excerpt from Nossel’s 2004 paper on "Smart Power" published in the Council on Foreign Relations’ Foreign Affairs magazine sounds a lot like Samantha Power’s (and also traces back to Madeleine Albright’s) theories:

"To advance from a nuanced dissent to a compelling vision, progressive policymakers should turn to the great mainstay of twentieth-century U.S. foreign policy: liberal internationalism, which posits that a global system of stable liberal democracies would be less prone to war.

"Washington, the theory goes, should thus offer assertive leadership — diplomatic, economic, and not least, military [our emphasis] — to advance a broad array of goals: self-determination, human rights, free trade, the rule of law, economic development, and the quarantine and elimination of dictators and weapons of mass destruction (WMD)."

Perhaps the AI’s hiring of a State Department shill as executive director of its U.S. affiliate was merely coincidental to how/why its "NATO Shadow Summit " so closely mimicked the CIA’s latest propaganda assault, but….

The "CIA Red Cell," a group of analysts assigned to think "outside the box" to anticipate emerging challenges, was right to worry in March 2010 when the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) found that 80 percent of French and German citizens were opposed to continued deployment of their countries’ militaries in the U.S.-NATO war in Afghanistan.

Even though public apathy had, up to that point, enabled French and German politicians to "ignore their voters" and steadily increase their governments’ troop contributions to Afghanistan, the CIA’s newly-created think tank was concerned that a forecasted increase in NATO casualties in the upcoming "bloody summer … could become a tipping point in converting passive opposition into active calls for immediate withdrawal."

In a "confidential" memo, the "Red Cell" wrote: "The Afghanistan mission’s low public salience has allowed French and German leaders to disregard popular opposition and steadily increase their troop contributions to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). Berlin and Paris currently maintain the third and fourth highest ISAF troop levels, despite the opposition of 80 percent of German and French respondents to increased ISAF deployments, according to INR polling in fall 2009.

"Public Apathy Enables Leaders To Ignore Voters …

"Only a fraction (0.1-1.3 percent) of French and German respondents identified ‘Afghanistan’ as the most urgent issue facing their nation in an open-ended question, according to the same polling. These publics ranked ‘stabilizing Afghanistan’ as among the lowest priorities for US and European leaders, according to polls by the German Marshall Fund (GMF) over the past two years.

"According to INR polling in the fall of 2009, the view that the Afghanistan mission is a waste of resources and ‘not our problem’ was cited as the most common reason for opposing ISAF by German respondents and was the second most common reason by French respondents. But the ‘not our problem’ sentiment also suggests that, so for, sending troops to Afghanistan is not yet on most voters’ radar.

"But Casualties Could Precipitate Backlash

"If some forecasts of a bloody summer in Afghanistan come to pass, passive French and German dislike of their troop presence could turn into active and politically potent hostility. The tone of previous debate suggests that a spike in French or German casualties or in Afghan civilian casualties could become a tipping point in converting passive opposition into active calls for immediate withdrawal."

The CIA "Special Memorandum" went a step further, inviting "a CIA expert on strategic communication and analysts following public opinion" to suggest "information campaigns" that State Department polls showed likely to sway Western Europeans.

The "Red Cell" memo was quickly leaked, however, furnishing a remarkable window into how U.S. government propaganda is designed to work upon NATO citizenry to maintain public support for the euphemistically titled "International Security Assistance Force" (ISAF) waging war on Afghans. Here are some of the CIA propaganda expert’s suggestions:

"Messaging that dramatizes the potential adverse consequences of an ISAF defeat for Afghan civilians could leverage French (and other European) guilt for abandoning them. The prospect of the Taliban rolling back hard-won progress on girls’ education could provoke French indignation, become a rallying point for France’s largely secular public, and give voters a reason to support a good and necessary cause despite casualties. …

"Outreach initiatives that create media opportunities for Afghan women to share their stories with French, German, and other European women could help to overcome pervasive skepticism among women in Western Europe toward the ISAF mission. … Media events that feature testimonials by Afghan women would probably be most effective if broadcast on programs that have large and disproportionately female audiences."

‘NATO: Keep the Progress Going!’

Amnesty International struck similar themes in announcements posted online as well as billboard advertisements on Chicago bus stops. "NATO: Keep the Progress Going!" beckoned us to find out more on Sunday, May 20, 2012, the day thousands of activists marched in Chicago in protest of NATO’s wars.

The billboard seemed to answer a recent Huffington Post article, "Afghanistan: The First Feminist War?"

"The feminist victory may be complete in America, but on the international stage it’s not doing so well with three quarters of the world’s women still under often-severe male domination. Afghanistan is an extreme case in point in what might be termed the first feminist war … a war that now may not be won even if Hillary Clinton dons a flack jacket and shoulders an M16 on the front lines. Still, since the Bush Administration to the present America ‘s top foreign policy office has been held by women … women who have promised not to desert their Afghan sisters."

Our curiosity was further piqued because we consider ourselves to be women’s rights and human rights proponents and also due to our own prior federal careers in intelligence and military. (Colonel Wright is retired from the State Department/US military and Rowley is from the FBI.)

So along with a few other anti-war activists, we packed into a taxi to head to the Chicago hotel where Amnesty International’s "Shadow Summit" featuring former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and other female foreign relations officials was being held. We happened to carry our "NATO bombs are not humanitarian"; "NATO Kills Girls" and anti-drone bombing posters that we had with us for the march later that day.

As we arrived, an official-looking black car dropped off Melanne Verveer, U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues, who was to be a main speaker (on the first panel, along with former Secretary Albright; U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Illinois; and Afifa Azim, General Director and Co-Founder, Afghan Women’s Network; along with Moderator Gayle Tzemach Lemmon, Deputy Director of the Council on Foreign Relations’ Women and Foreign Policy Program).

Verveer cast a cold glance at us and would not answer Ann Wright’s questions as she scurried into the hotel with her aides surrounding her and us following behind. At first the hotel security guards tried to turn us away but we reminded the registration desk the Summit was advertised as "Free Admissions" and that some of us were members of Amnesty International.

So they let us register and attend as long as we promised to leave our signs outside and not disrupt the speakers. The hotel conference room was about half full. We stayed long enough to hear the opening remarks and the moderator’s first questions of Albright and the other speakers on the first panel.

All generally linked the protection and participation of Afghan women in government as well as the progress made in educating Afghan women to the eventual peace and security of the country as envisioned by the new strategic "partnership" agreement that Obama had just signed with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Ms. Verveer said Afghan women do not want to be seen as "victims" but are now rightfully nervous about their future. When we saw that audience participation was going to be limited to questions selected from the small note cards being collected, we departed, missing the second panel as well as kite-flying for women’s rights.

We noted, even in that short time, however, how easy it was for these U.S. government officials to use the "good and necessary cause" of women’s rights to get the audience into the palm of their collective hand — just as the CIA’s "strategic communication" expert predicted!

Secretary Albright?

Not everyone was hoodwinked however. Even before the "Summit" was held, Amnesty realized it had a PR problem as a result of its billboard advertisement touting progress in Afghanistan. An Amnesty official tried to put forth a rather lame defense blaming an accidental poor choice of wording.

But many readers (and AI members) posted critical comments and questions, including concerns about Albright’s involvement given her infamous defense of Iraqi sanctions in the 1990s, which were estimated to have caused the deaths of a half million Iraqi children, with the comment "we think the price is worth it."

Under the blogger’s explanation: "We Get It / Human Rights Now," there were comments like these:

"Could someone from AI please explain why Madeleine Albright was invited to participate in this event? We (and especially those of us who are familiar with AI) should all be able to understand that the wording on the poster was a genuine, albeit damaging, mistake. But why Ms. Albright?"

"The posters are pro-NATO and play into prevailing tropes about so called ‘humanitarian intervention’ via ‘think of the women & children’ imagery. The posters & the forum that includes Albright are neither slight slips nor without context. AI is coping heat because they have miss-stepped dramatically. There is NOTHING subtle about either the imagery nor the message!

"It is not a case of ‘oh sorry we didn’t realize it it could be interpreted that way!’ They used pro Nato imagery & slogans ahead of & during a controversial summit that has thousands protesting in the streets. Tell me again how that is not taking sides?

"They asked a notorious apologist for mass murder of children to speak on the right of women and children…tell me again: how is that not taking sides. So it is absolutely reasonable for past supporters (and board members like myself) to be asking how it is that Amnesty USA so lost its bearings they could make a critical SERIES of errors like this?"

Of course the defensive AI blog author never answered the numerous questions asking why Amnesty had chosen Madeleine Albright as their main speaker. So we will venture an answer that probably lies in the fact that all of the powerful feminist-war hawks who have risen to become Secretary of State (or are waiting in the wings) are now taking their lead from the ruthless Grand Dame who paved the way for them, Madeleine Albright — (see Coleen Rowley’s recent articles: "Obama’s New ‘Atrocity Prevention Board’: Reasons for Skepticism" and "Militarization of the Mothers: You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby, from Mother’s Day for Peace").

It’s also possible the highest ranks of the feminist wing of military interventionism (i.e. Madeleine Albright, Condi Rice, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Samantha Power, et al) are so passionate and hubristic about the nobility of their goal and "American exceptionalism" that some have simply succumbed to a kind of almost religious (blind faith) type fervor.

The Road to Hell

Nossel’s and Albright’s theories are flawed in many ways but suffice it to say that democracies are actually not less prone to war. A long list of "democracies" – including Nazi Germany, the Roman Empire, the United Kingdom, France, and the United States itself – disprove this assertion.

In any event, the U.S. has been terribly hypocritical in its support of "democracies" in foreign countries, often toppling or attempting to topple them (i.e. Iran’s Mosaddegh, Guatemala’s Arbenz, Chile’s Allende) in order to gain easier control of a foreign country through an allied dictatorship.

No one is going to argue that the goals of humanitarianism, preventing atrocities, and furthering women’s rights around the world are not "good and necessary" (in the words of the CIA strategic communications expert). We would go so far as to say these ARE truly noble causes!

Testimonials about human rights abuse are often true and fundamentalist regimes’ treatment of women seems to vary only in degrees of horrible. But while it’s true that many women lack rights in Afghanistan, some would argue that it’s conveniently true. And that the best lies are always based on a certain amount of truth.

The devil, however, lies in the details of promoting equality and accomplishing humanitarianism. Most importantly the ends, even noble ends, never justify wrongful means. In fact, when people such as Samantha Power decide to bomb the village (Libya) to save it, it will backfire on a pragmatic level.

It must be realized that it is the nobility of the U.S.-NATO’s motivation that – as CIA propaganda department has advised – should be relied upon to convince otherwise good-hearted people (especially women) to support (or at least tolerate) war and military occupation (now known to encompass the worst of war crimes, massacres of women and children, torture, cutting off body parts of those killed, as well as increasing mental illness, self-destructive behavior and suicides among U.S. soldiers and the corresponding cover-ups of all such horrible means).

In the decades after Vietnam, a number of military scholars identified declining American public support for that war as the main factor responsible for the U.S. "losing" Vietnam. One lesson learned and quickly implemented was to get rid of the military draft and put the wars on a credit card so fewer citizens would pay attention.

Some control also had to be gained over the type of free media (that led to trusted TV anchor Walter Cronkite broadcasting his public souring on the Vietnam War). A whole series of war propaganda systems, from planting retired generals as "talking heads" on TV to the assistant to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld deciding to "embed the media," have worked pretty well to maintain the necessary level of war momentum in mainstream media and amongst public opinion.

But now, with American polls approaching the same problematic levels as those in Europe cited by the "CIA Red Cell," we suddenly see major human rights organizations like Amnesty International (as well as others) applauding Obama’s (and the feminist war-hawks’) "Atrocity Prevention Board."

Such sleight of hand seems to work even better amongst political partisans. By the way, it should be noted that Congress may allow these Pentagon propagandists to target American citizens through the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013. Should we connect the dots?

There are some clear lines where the laudable need to further human rights should not be twisted into justifying harsh economic sanctions that kill hundreds of thousands of children or, even worse, "shock and awe" aerial bombing that takes the lives of the women and children the "humanitarian" propagandists say they want to help.

Madeleine Albright’s response about the deaths of a half million children on 60 Minutes, that "the price was worth it," illustrates the quintessential falsity of what ethicists call "act utilitarianism" or concocting fictional happy outcomes to justify the terrible wrongful means.

It also seems that a human rights NGO, in this case Amnesty International, which had gained a solid reputation and hence the trust of those it has helped through the years, will be jeopardized in aligning itself with the U.S. Secretary of State and NATO.

This is exactly how the Nobel Peace Prize got corrupted, aligning itself with the U.S. Secretary of State and NATO, which is why Nobel laureate Mairead Maguire withdrew from the Nobel Peace forum held in Chicago during NATO.

Good NGOS and non-profits that want to maintain the trust in their humanitarian work tend to be very careful to maintain their independence from any government, let alone any war-making government. When NGOs, even good ones, become entwined with the U.S./NATO war machine, don’t they risk losing their independent credibility?

[juleswin]

oh by the way

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/brutal-land-where-homosexuality-is-punishable-by-death-792057.html

...unless Amnesty International is some secret globalist plot too


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fAl2oombx4&feature=my_favorites&list=FLqqHs735k6ChLRBjEA1NZ7w

The Gaddafi Mercenaries and the Division of Africa
How Amnesty International spread rumors and fuelled media disinformation during NATO attacks on Libya in 2011.

[RonRules]

He needs to get rid of that lame "Members Only" jacket:

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/6/12/1244802962006/Irans-President-Mahmoud-A-001.jpg

[Miss Annie]

Me and all those Muslim children killed by American bombs also believe that since it is a part of Sharia. FUCK YA AMERICA, Kill those Muslim children for believing in their religion.

At least when someone is accused of apostasy in Islam, there is a trial.

Did America ever hold a trial for any Muslim child that it killed?

Please explain to me why the muslims are slaughtering the Christians in Egypt and Lybia,.... and all over the Middle East for that matter?
Is it because they are Christian and that is the law according to Sharia? Killing people for apostasy certainly is not walking hand in hand with liberty or freedom of religion.

[juleswin]

Please explain to me why the muslims are slaughtering the Christians in Egypt and Lybia,.... and all over the Middle East for that matter?
Is it because they are Christian and that is the law according to Sharia?

Mostly lies, I have family friends(Christians) whose parents worked in Libya. The slaughtering for one is usually between the hardcore Islamist(Saudi trained Wahhabi) against everybody else who support secular law. Libyan Christians and Muslims lived peacefully with each other until the Wahhabi came into the picture. And even sometimes when the news present to a conflict between Christians and Muslims, it never really that simple. These problems are usually very complex and mostly involves a struggle for land, power, control etc etc.

There is a video of YT showing Christians in Egypt coming out to protect the Muslims during their Friday prayers and Muslims reciprocating by doing the same during Sunday prayers. Muslims and Christians live peacefully in Syria, Palestine, Iran, Morocco, Algeria, Libya (not so anymore), Ethiopia etc etc

[ExPatPaki]

Please explain to me why the muslims are slaughtering the Christians in Egypt and Lybia,.... and all over the Middle East for that matter?


All over the middle east? Please don't be dramatic. Christians did most of the slaughtering during the Lebanese civil war, killing over 3500 Muslim civilians in one refugee camp.

Those so-called Muslims are getting support from your US government. Please explain to me why your government supports these types of Muslims and at the same time your western media then demonizes all of Islam for it.

China oppresses and kills Christians. Fanatic Hindus in India do the same. Do you say anything against that, or is your bias reserved against Muslims who get killed daily by the American war machine?

And trust me, the amount of Christians killed by Saudi and US supported Wahabi fanatics comes no where close to the millions of Muslims killed by US war and sanctions.

[Ender]

Please explain to me why the muslims are slaughtering the Christians in Egypt and Lybia,.... and all over the Middle East for that matter?
Is it because they are Christian and that is the law according to Sharia? Killing people for apostasy certainly is not walking hand in hand with liberty or freedom of religion.

First of all, we are talking about Iran which does NOT slaughter Christians. Downtown Tehran looks like the US during the Christmas Season.

2nd- make sure your sources are viable- most news sources are not. Many stories are made up; many atrocities are also by US backed "rebels".

3rd- the so-called "Christian" country of America has killed a whole lot more Muslims than vs/vs. Maybe we ought to stop the wars?

[Miss Annie]

So is it a media created myth that all Muslims desire Sharia and choose to live under that law?
I do understand that there are some "nasty, extreme, and hateful" Christians out there (Westboro for example)...... is it the same with Muslims? Do not all Muslims endorse Sharia and it's extremes?
I understand there are different "sects" of Islam, as with Christianity - it is hard to understand which is which and who is who with the lies of the media.
It grieves me intensely to see the goings on in the middle east. It is my understanding that Syria was protecting the Christians driven out of Egypt and Lybia...... and now those Christians are fleeing to Iran and Turkey.

[pcosmar]

It grieves me intensely to see the goings on in the middle east. It is my understanding that Syria was protecting the Christians driven out of Egypt and Lybia...... and now those Christians are fleeing to Iran and Turkey.

It does me too.
You need to understand that the media (news) is owned by the same people fomenting the wars, and stirring up the trouble.
Their spin on it is often NOT the whole truth.

[juleswin]

So is it a media created myth that all Muslims desire Sharia and choose to live under that law?
I do understand that there are some "nasty, extreme, and hateful" Christians out there (Westboro for example)...... is it the same with Muslims? Do not all Muslims endorse Sharia and it's extremes?
I understand there are different "sects" of Islam, as with Christianity - it is hard to understand which is which and who is who with the lies of the media.
It grieves me intensely to see the goings on in the middle east. It is my understanding that Syria was protecting the Christians driven out of Egypt and Lybia...... and now those Christians are fleeing to Iran and Turkey.

From my experience, pious Muslims generally support some form of Sharia. Mostly they want a self imposed version except when it comes to public dress codes (i.e women dressing in conservatively). Since they believe that it interferes with the daily practice of their religion, they will support a form of dress code for women. But usually the ones you see who are trying to impose all aspects of Sharia law on the masses are the Wahhabi. They are very fanatical, Saudi trained and violent types who are regularly opposed by regular Muslims. Those are the types you see burning churches, schools and govt buildings in Nigeria.

This is the best of my knowledge from living with Muslims in my youth, so any Muslim can feel free to correct me if am wrong with my assessment.

[ExPatPaki]

So is it a media created myth that all Muslims desire Sharia and choose to live under that law?

Sharia = Islam. Those two words can be used interchangeably. Some would like the government to enforce Sharia. Others would like the government to stay out of religious affairs. I consider myself to be of the latter.


It is my understanding that Syria was protecting the Christians driven out of Egypt and Lybia...... and now those Christians are fleeing to Iran and Turkey.

No, Syria was accepting Iraqi refugees, some of which were Christian, due to the US-led war there. Now since there is an insurgency in Syria, the Christians are either stuck there or going back to Iraq. There haven't been any Christians driven out of Egypt and Libya, as far as I know. I also haven't heard of any Christians fleeing to Turkey, since Turkey is supporting the Syrian insurgency against the Christians there. I also haven't heard of any Christians fleeing to Iran due to the crisis in Syria.

[Miss Annie]

It does me too.
You need to understand that the media (news) is owned by the same people fomenting the wars, and stirring up the trouble.
Their spin on it is often NOT the whole truth.

I agree Pete,...... one of my greatest challenges is differentiating between truth and BS. The BS and propaganda is EVERYWHERE!
Even the sources that I once thought were good,..... I am now questioning. (AJ, WND, Drudge, etc..... ) They all seem to be shilling for one side or another.

Thanks for the explanations Juleswin and ExPat. :) Much appreaciated!

[Barrex]

There is a lot of christian workers from Croatia in Syria. They never had any trouble and reported back only good things... not sure what is situation now when there is a war going on.

[Cutlerzzz]

Me and all those Muslim children killed by American bombs also believe that since it is a part of Sharia. FUCK YA AMERICA, Kill those Muslim children for believing in their religion.

At least when someone is accused of apostasy in Islam, there is a trial.

Did America ever hold a trial for any Muslim child that it killed?

The crucial difference is that no one here is advocating the murder of Muslims, whereas you are advocating the murder of Christians in the name of religion.

[Muwahid]

From my experience, pious Muslims generally support some form of Sharia. Mostly they want a self imposed version except when it comes to public dress codes (i.e women dressing in conservatively). Since they believe that it interferes with the daily practice of their religion, they will support a form of dress code for women. But usually the ones you see who are trying to impose all aspects of Sharia law on the masses are the Wahhabi. They are very fanatical, Saudi trained and violent types who are regularly opposed by regular Muslims. Those are the types you see burning churches, schools and govt buildings in Nigeria.

This is the best of my knowledge from living with Muslims in my youth, so any Muslim can feel free to correct me if am wrong with my assessment.

"Wahhabi" is basically a buzz-word that even U.S. politicians and pundits are picking up on. It's nothing more than a derogatory term for Salafi. The difference between Salafis and non-Salafis, are not that big in difference and almost always are in regard to theological aspects of Islam, and less to do with Shar'iah.

The major branches within Sunni Islam (the vast majority of Muslims, like 80%) can be watered down to two differences in philosophical reasoning, the Asharis, and the Salafis. The Salafis are a big minority, and are more hardline, but these differences generally wouldn't show when it comes to the outsider perspective (differences in the realm of "where is God", "anthropomorphism", and rationalization).

I have never heard of a large group of Muslims trying to impose something more than the norm of Shar'iah, Islam does have dress codes, they vary, but western countries do impose decency laws as well, you can't just go out naked in the street, we have a more strict interpretation of private parts in Islam. So in closing this stark differnce people try to make with "extremists" and "non-extremists" doesn't really exist, if you went as far as Osama Bin Ladens interpretation of Islam who most consider "extreme" it's nothing out of the ordinary, that's just a fact, but people don't sit and read up on his interpretation of Islam, or Boko Haram's for that matter, we see what's on TV and try our best to attribute it to a way of thinking that may not even exist in the real world.

There are extremists of course who say kill everyone! But they are shunned and loners generally, who are destined to be entrapped by the feds anyway, any large scale organization couldn't survive with a violent mentality because people, especially religiously inclined, want peace not war. There may be exceptions to this in poor obscure countries where education is poor of course, but we're talking in general.


Please explain to me why the muslims are slaughtering the Christians in Egypt and Lybia,.... and all over the Middle East for that matter?
Is it because they are Christian and that is the law according to Sharia? Killing people for apostasy certainly is not walking hand in hand with liberty or freedom of religion.

Miss Annie, how on earth would Christians have survived in the Middle East, where Islam dominated for 1,400 years, if Muslims killed Christians? We did in fact see Christians trying to mass convert Muslims and Jews, and Natives, but this was almost exclusive to Christians at least because Islam tolerated Christians and Jews and even made pacts and peace agreements with Pagans forced conversions never happened and are explicitly forbidden in Islam.

I hear a lot of rhetoric on this forum that Saddam Hussein was protecting Christians, Bashar al Assad was protecting Christians, etc. etc. when shocks me is, where does all this slaughter of Christians come from in American's minds? Do you think any Majority Muslim country has a policy of eradicating Christians?! I personally walked through huge Christians communities in the Middle East, and saw Mosques and Churches nearly side-by-side! People have this idea that in Muslim countries other religions are eradicated and it's sad to hear that because Islam helped PRESERVE Christianity -- when Muslims ruled Jerusalem, the Churches and holy places were open to all religions, when CHRISTIANS took Jerusalem, our beloved al Aqsa mosque was used as a horse stable.

Here's a religious verdict from a "WAHHABI" Saudi Cleric Sheikh Ibn al Uthaymeen with regards to treatment of non-Muslims by Muslims:

وأما الكافر فلا بأس من بره ، والإحسان إليه بشرط أن يكون ممن لا يقاتلوننا في ديننا ، ولم يخرجونا من ديارنا ؛ لقوله تعالى : (لا يَنْهَاكُمْ اللَّهُ عَنْ الَّذِينَ لَمْ يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ وَلَمْ يُخْرِجُوكُمْ مِنْ دِيَارِكُمْ أَنْ تَبَرُّوهُمْ وَتُقْسِطُوا إِلَيْهِمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُقْسِطِينَ)

Translation: As for the non-Muslims, there is nothing wrong with treating them nicely as long as they are not from those who fight as and want to drive us from our homes, because the most exalted has said: Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion and did not drive you out of your homes. Verily, Allah loves those who deal with equity

The fact is Muslims have a obligation to protect peace loving non-Muslims within their borders. The prophet Muhammad (ص) said: ألا من ظلم معاهدا أو انتقصه أو كلفه فوق طاقته أو أخذ منه شيئا بغير طيب نفس فأنا حجيجه يوم القيامة (Translation: Whoever oppresses a Mu'ahhad (non-Muslims at peace with Muslims), or disparages him or burdens them, or takes something from him without permission, then I will be his opponent on the day of judgement).

So Christians fleeing places? How much do you want to bet that there are many more Muslims fleeing the same areas? It's called war, everyone flees, it doesn't means crazy Muzzies are beating them silly.

Apologies for the long post RPF'ers.

[Miss Annie]

I understand there is a battle going on for the minds and opinions of people..... the war is being fought in the media. I know a TON of it is BS.... but trying to sift and sort and figure out which ton is a daunting task. Here is an example of where the "information" is coming from - that muslims hate Christians. This is even on Drudge right now.....
http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/arab-spring-run-amok-brotherhood-starts-crucifixions/

[DerailingDaTrain]

Am I the only one who doesn't like ExPatPaki? He is really getting on my nerves with this BS.

[pcosmar]

Am I the only one who doesn't like ExPatPaki? He is really getting on my nerves with this BS.

So what.
I know of no requirement to like him.

Frankly, you and a few others get on my nerves.

[DerailingDaTrain]

So what.
I know of no requirement to like him.

Frankly, you and a few others get on my nerves.

I get on your nerves? I'm not carrying water for a hellhole that murders it's own citizens for minor offenses. He's acting like Iran is some great place that has no problems and the US is such a horrible place to live. It's BS and his talk of killing people who convert to another religion doesn't sound to good either. Is he even a RP supporter? He doesn't sound very liberty minded to me.

Sharia sounds really awesome! /sarcasm


Qadi 'Iyad argues that insulting the Prophet Muhammad is prohibited. Such criticism is blasphemy and punishable by death


Homosexual sex is illegal under most interpretations of sharia law, though the prescribed penalties differ from one school of jurisprudence to another. For example, these Muslim-majority countries may impose the death penalty for acts perceived as sodomy and homosexual activities: Iran,Nigeria,Saudi Arabia,Somalia.


In 2003, a Malaysian court ruled that, under sharia law, a man may divorce his wife via text messaging as long as the message was clear and unequivocal.


The major juristic schools of Islam have traditionally accepted the institution of slavery.


As monotheists, Jews and Christians have traditionally been considered "People of The Book," and afforded a special status known as dhimmi derived from a theoretical contract - "dhimma" or "residence in return for taxes". There are parallels for this in Roman and Jewish law.Hindus were originally considered pagans and given the choice between conversion to Islam and death (or slavery), as pagans are not afforded the rights and protections of the dhimma contract.

[pcosmar]

I get on your nerves? I'm not carrying water for a hellhole that murders it's own citizens for minor offenses. He's acting like Iran is some great place that has no problems and the US is such a horrible place to live. It's BS and his talk of killing people who convert to another religion doesn't sound to good either. Is he even a RP supporter? He doesn't sound very liberty minded to me.

No worse than the Israel apologists.
Or those that justify what we have done to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Or those that go on and on about the Hostage crisis by never mention Savak or the overthrow that installed the Shaw.

Seems to me he brings a balance.

And no,, I don't always agree with him,, but appreciate the perspective.

[PierzStyx]

Mousavi was involved in the Marines Barracks attacks in Lebanon in 1983 which killed more than 200 American soldiers occupying Lebanon. Even if he was elected, he is not really in charge, the Supreme Leader, Khamanei is, and I doubt he would let him make any "reforms" since he didn't let Khatami do anything either.

During the protests in Iran, Wikileaks revealed that Ahmadinejad protested in a meeting and said that "the people were being suffocated", to which the leader of the Revolutionary Guards got up and slapped him on his face, showing him who is really in charge.

He has massive appeal, and I think he was far more popular in Iran than Mousavi. The University of Maryland did a post-election survey and found that Ahmadinejad was more popular than Mousavi and disputed the allegations of vote-rigging. I think his appeal is due to the fact that he is not like other Muslim leaders, he doesn't live in a presidential palace, he lives in a very modest house. He doesn't drive a nice BMW, but a beat up old car from the 1970s. He doesn't even sleep on a bed, but chooses to sleep on the floor because the Prophet Muhammad did it 1400 years ago.

Election fraud in Iran is unheard of. Iran's elected legislators have impeached ministers and dismissed the nominees of several Presidents, including Ahmadinejad. Khatami, one of the leading reformists in Iran, was elected president by the people, when the interior ministry was run by ultra-conservatives. He won with over 70 percent of the vote, not once, but twice.

It's very surprising that since 1980, Iran had a deadly 8 year war with Iraq, boycotts, embargoes, sanctions, assassinations of its lawmakers by the MKO (a terrorist group supported by the West), it still managed to never miss an election during the three decades since the revolution. Iran has elected more presidents than any in the world since 1980 and is the only one that held ten presidential elections within thirty years of its revolution.

And even I found this surprising. I was watching a discussion on PressTV English regarding the 2009 elections. Even on that station, the Western journalists were calling him a "dictator" and accusing him of being shady in the election.

I don't have a problem with Mousavi being involved in the Lebanon attacks. US troops should have never been there. We reaped the just deserts for our interventionism.

Election fraud apparently isn't unheard of since Mousavi was cheated. Why is it that its so hard for you to believe dishonest authoritarians also exist in the Middle East? Stop being so reactionary. Ahmadinejad and the Supreme Leader are both complete authoritarians.They have no interest or desire in granting anymore liberties to the people. The same kind of authoritarian interests that work against those who would fight to restore the people's lost liberty here also fight against it in Iran as well.

As for having Mousavi not being the supreme Head of Government, you are right. But neither is our President. Yet would you rather have Obama or Ron Paul as the next President? I know I'd rather have Paul because he at least he would fight for greater restored liberties and against further seizure of liberty from the people. Mousavi would do the same.

[PierzStyx]

oh by the way

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/brutal-land-where-homosexuality-is-punishable-by-death-792057.html

...unless Amnesty International is some secret globalist plot too

Apparently you haven't been here long enough to learn that whenever someone says something they don't like some around here immediately label them part of the "global conspiracy." Its an irrational faith requiring no proof.

[Ender]

Am I the only one who doesn't like ExPatPaki? He is really getting on my nerves with this BS.

What? You only like your version of the truth? He has had some experience that can help all of us understand this mess.

[DerailingDaTrain]

What? You only like your version of the truth? He has had some experience that can help all of us understand this mess.

Yep. That's exactly what I'm saying.

:rolleyes:

Did I say anything about his experiences? I'm talking about him saying it's fine to murder people who convert to another religion, his lies about Iran, and the messed up stuff he is advocating.

[showpan]

A little more history that is long overlooked.

First of all, there are different types of Jews. The actual Jews who lived peacefully with Palestinians and Arabs for centuries are in fact persecuted today by the communist, atheist Jews who have claimed the land for their own this century. A simple search would go a long way to understanding what has happened in the last 100 years or so.


On Nov. 4, 2003, Reinhard Günzel, a brigadier general, who was head of Germany's Special Forces (KSK), was given a "dishonourable" discharge from the army's services. He was fired because he wrote a letter to Martin Hohmann (MP, CDU), who recently went on record about the Jewish role in Bolshevik Russia; and the General applauded Mr. Hohmann's statements.

Hohmann then made this known to the press, who in turn had a field day.

However, there is one thing that the press mysteriously overlooks. What was said is true.

Isn't it almost "funny" how the TRUTH has become anti-Semitic. I mean, it's an actual FACT here that we're talking about: Jews were behind the Russian revolution. This is not some outlandish statement. It should not be considered anti-Semitic, yet it is.

Jews openly bragged about the Russian revolution and its aftereffects at the time. They gloated. They were the financiers--from Warburg to Jacob Schiff (whose great-grand son recently married Al Gore's daughter, oddly enough). They were the revolutionaries--from Apfelbaum, to Zinoviev, to Molotov, to Trotsky (Bronstein), to Lenin (Ulyanov), etc. They were the bloodthirsty horde in the NKVD who later became the KGB, led by Kaganovich and Berija, who were responsible for liquidating untold millions of innocent Russians, Ukrainians, Hungarians etc.

And, now Jews say, "Who, us? No, Jews had nothing to do with it. You're just anti-Semitic for saying such things."

Even those Jews who might still be alive and who took part in the massacres afterward now deny the massacres had anything to do with Jews. Even though anti-Semitism became a crime punishable by death after the Russian revolution, Jews now say that they were "persecuted." Even though the churches burned while the synagogues were left standing, Jews deny that they were protected. Even though priests were murdered or forced to sweep the streets, while rabbis were put on a pedestal, Jews now say they were the ones persecuted.

There is only one thing that we can conclude from all this: Truth is anti-Semitic.

http://globalfire.tv/nj/03en/jews/perpetrators1.htm


The Execution of

Tsar Nicholas II, 1918

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/nicholas.htm


Winston Churchill described the tumultuous years between 1918 and 1933 as a period of 'formidable transformations'. Germany, defeated in a war not of its own making, was laid prostrate by defeat, revolution and anarchy. Communist revolutionaries eager to capitalise on their overthrow of the Russian state seized power. A British Government White Paper estimated that the Royal Navy's blockade on Germany "caused nearly 800,000 deaths, mainly women and children." Vast tracts of German territory were seized as booty and claims for reparations were so draconian that they effectively turned every German into a slave of the victors.

With the Kaiser (king) in exile, the Workers and Soldiers' Soviets and the Social Democrats 'dismissed' the legitimate Ebert government and proclaimed a Soviet Republic. Armed bands of communists (Spartacists) led by Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebnecht, patrolled the streets. In Bavaria, another Jew, Kurt Eisner had declared the province a Soviet Republic. Soldiers returning from the front were massacred, revolutionaries seized state property and strikes designed to cause maximum damage to the staggering economy were organised. Barracks and naval dockyards were seized and street barricades divided Germany's cities and towns into politico-criminal fiefdoms.
The French occupied the Rhineland and ruled with an iron fist. An ordinary German passer-by might be randomly picked out and smashed to the ground with a rifle butt or fist. The French attempt to separate Bavaria from Germany sparked Adolf Hitler's brave but futile November Putsch.

The Saar and the Rhineland were occupied by French troops; inflation soared out of control until there were 136,000,000 Deutsch Marks to the dollar. Decadence erupted in sleaze. Art was debased as were the German people. Child prostitutes of both sexes could be bought openly on the streets. The world's debased were quick to take advantage of the German nation's descent into the economic chaos of defeat and revolutionaries fought like jackals for the territorial remains.

The peace terms (Versailles Treaty); dictated by the victor nations and notorious for its monstrously unjust nature was heaped upon this volcanic social upheaval.

"The greater part of our troubles is the result of World War I and the bad treaties which ended it." (Alfonso of Bourbon and Orleans. Great Grandson of Queen Victoria)

"Germany suffered most as a consequence of this Peace Treaty and the general insecurity which was bound to arise from it. The unemployment figures rose to a third of the number usually employed in the nation, which means, however, that by counting the families of the unemployed as well there were 26 million people in Germany out of a population of 65 millions faced by an absolutely hopeless future." (Adolf Hitler)

In Russia, the Bolsheviks had seized power. The geographical giant on Germany's eastern borders was locked into civil war, the brutality of which knew no bounds. The tentacles of the emerging internationalism of Communism were spreading like wildfire throughout Europe.

"Germany, with more than 6 million communists was on the verge of a catastrophe which none but those wanting in common sense can possibly ignore. If red terrorism was to have swept over Germany the western countries of Europe would probably also have realised that it is not a matter of indifference to them whether the outposts of a destructive Asian world power stand guard on the Rhine and on the North Sea, or whether the land is populated by peaceful German peasants and working men whose only wish is to make an honest living and to be on friendly terms with other nations. By averting this disaster which was threatening to ruin Germany, the National Socialist movement saved not only the German people, but also rendered the rest of Europe a service of historical merit. The National Socialist revolution has but one aim; To restore order in our own country, to provide work and bread for our starving masses and to lay down the ideas of honour, loyalty and decency as being the basis of our moral code, which, far from doing harm to other nations, can be for the benefit of all." (Adolf Hitler)

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/witness1.htm#3

[pochy1776]

If Iran opened up my girlfriend and i could have spent time on the beautiful iranian beach.

[Barrex]

If Iran opened up my girlfriend ...


It took me some time to understand this one....

[PierzStyx]

If Iran opened up my girlfriend and i could have spent time on the beautiful iranian beach.

Iran is only blockaded to America, because we blockade them. You can get an Iranian passport through Europe. It is just a real hassle.

[PierzStyx]

What? You only like your version of the truth? He has had some experience that can help all of us understand this mess.

Its not that he has a different perspective. It is that he attacks you like a raving mad dog and accuses you either explicitly or implicitly of being a racist who hates Muslims anytime you say anything he doesn't like about someone who happens to be either Muslim or Middle Easterner. To put it in a word, he is a jerk.

[moostraks]

It took me some time to understand this one....

ahhh...for want of a comma, a point was lost. It took me a second or two of re-reading as well!!!

[moostraks]

Apparently you haven't been here long enough to learn that whenever someone says something they don't like some around here immediately label them part of the "global conspiracy." Its an irrational faith requiring no proof.


Its not that he has a different perspective. It is that he attacks you like a raving mad dog and accuses you either explicitly or implicitly of being a racist who hates Muslims anytime you say anything he doesn't like about someone who happens to be either Muslim or Middle Easterner. To put it in a word, he is a jerk.

And you rage on consistently about global conspiracy accusations...At least his anger/frustration comes from loss of human life.

[truelies]

.................Yes, and Nikita Khrushchev said, "We will bury you," and, "Your grandchildren will live under communism." ................

Turns out he was right. The grandkids of the generation which was miitary age in 1962 are in fact living under a regime which is communist Amerikan Style.

[truelies]

Personally, I don't want an attack on Iran............BUT also I want to see the moslems gone from America.

[ExPatPaki]

The crucial difference is that no one here is advocating the murder of Muslims, whereas you are advocating the murder of Christians in the name of religion.

I never have advocated murder. I only advocate what is according to Islam. People who convert out of Islam and become any other religion, are not considered to be a part of that religion, only apostates. So therefore there are not 'Christians' according to Sharia, just apostates.

There are laws against treason. They commit treason in an Islamic state, they face the consequences, just like in any other state.

In your mind:

Committing Treason in a country that is not yours + Trial = "Wanting to kill" or "advocating murder"

While American Christians go on killing Muslims daily in their own countries without any trial and you have nothing to say against that.

Now let's compare the two situations here.

There's some "pastor" in Iran who "converted" from Islam to Christianity in Iran, which is a crime punishable by death. The "pastor" was tried and is now awaiting execution.

Then there were infants in Iraq, who were summarily shot by foreign US troops. No trial for the infants. Can you tell me what crime these infants committed against the wonderful US government?

If you have a problem with Sharia, then you have a problem with Muslims. Lucky for you haters, America is killing Muslims on a daily basis without any trials (which you get under Sharia) so be happy about that.

None of the Iran haters has answered this:

When did the US ever hold a trial for any of the Muslim children it has killed?"

I wonder if I will ever get an answer.

[ExPatPaki]

his lies about Iran.

Apparently you have no qualms about the western media's lies about Iran, where they advocate for the gay pedophile baby rapist and say that the only reason he was getting executed was because that piece of shit was gay and not because he was a pedophile rapist.


I remember back in 2010 there was a guy in Iran on trial for raping a male child, but the Western "media" reported the case as the guy being on trial for being gay. These fucks did not care that a child was raped and instead spun the story to condition the people to accept the upcoming genocide of Iranians. Never let a good opportunity go to waste even if it comes at the expense of children. Of course, my point is moot to these "mainstream media" parrots who simply believe that Iranians and every other Muslim are not human and it is okay to kill 'em all.

[ExPatPaki]

Sharia sounds really awesome! /sarcasm

You have a habit of posting random 'Sharia' quotes without posting the source and who did the translation from Arabic to English. Without a valid translation your quotes can be disregarded. For me, the only legitimate sources of Sharia will originate from a Howza Ilmiyah institution. Any other source is not valid. Therefore, some random Malaysian law doesn't mean shit to me.

[Mundane]

Personally, I don't want an attack on Iran............BUT also I want to see the moslems gone from America.

Why not include Christians and Jews in that while you're at it?

[showpan]

Yeah, and after we wipe out all those evil Muslims, we can then go after those psychotic Hindu's. And when we have eventually eliminated all the other religions, you Christians had better run. The only reason you aren't first is because who else is going to do all this killing in the name of God.

[Xhin]

I've done extensive research into his quotes on Israel. Over and over he refers to the "Zionist regime" rather than israel. If you do research on israel's formation, then yes, it is in fact a zionist regime. Rather than denying the holocaust, ahmadinejad is denying the importance the holocaust in how people who question it get sent to jail and how it's used as a justification for the zionist takeover of palestine despite being half a world away. Again, he doesn't wish for israel to be wiped off the map, he wishes for the regime to cease to exist, and "The Muslims, Jews, and Christians of Palestine choose their own government". He wishes that Israel collapses from within like the soviet union did.

The reaction to his statements are ridiculous compared to what his statements actually are. It's really strange to see him say that the holocaust shouldn't be used as a basis for kicking 750,000 palestinians out of their homes, and then people from around the world decry his statements as "disgusting".

No, I'm not going to argue that he's the savior of Iran. I don't really have an opinion on him as a leader, but am just stating that his speeches on israel are taken way out of context and twisted to suit the "war with iran" agenda.

[pcosmar]

Yeah, and after we wipe out all those evil Muslims, we can then go after those psychotic Hindu's. And when we have eventually eliminated all the other religions, you Christians had better run. The only reason you aren't first is because who else is going to do all this killing in the name of God.

They are on the list,


"The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustionWe shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time."

[jmdrake]

There are extremists of course who say kill everyone! But they are shunned and loners generally, who are destined to be entrapped by the feds anyway, any large scale organization couldn't survive with a violent mentality because people, especially religiously inclined, want peace not war. There may be exceptions to this in poor obscure countries where education is poor of course, but we're talking in general.
.....
I hear a lot of rhetoric on this forum that Saddam Hussein was protecting Christians, Bashar al Assad was protecting Christians, etc. etc. when shocks me is, where does all this slaughter of Christians come from in American's minds? Do you think any Majority Muslim country has a policy of eradicating Christians?!

I don't know why you are "shocked" when you answered your own question. Yes there are extremists everywhere. And Saddam kept his foot on the neck of religious extremists because it suited his own purposes. With Saddam gone those very extremists engaged in horrendous sectarian violence, some of it aimed at Christians. That has nothing to do with the "Muslim majority". When Christian minorities fled the chaos of post Saddam Iraq, most of them headed to Syria. Those are facts. I'm not sure why that's "shocking" to you.

[Nickels]

I've done extensive research into his quotes on Israel. Over and over he refers to the "Zionist regime" rather than israel.

Is there another regime in Israel we should be aware of? I'm sure our government didn't want to wipe Iraq off the map either, we just wanted to change their Saddam regime.

[Kodaddy]

^^^which is why the US didn't turn Baghdad to glass with nukes...

[dillo]

Is there another regime in Israel we should be aware of? I'm sure our government didn't want to wipe Iraq off the map either, we just wanted to change their Saddam regime.

Yea Sadaam failed us when he wasn't able to successfully invade Iran in the 80s

[oyarde]

First of all, we are talking about Iran which does NOT slaughter Christians. Downtown Tehran looks like the US during the Christmas Season.

2nd- make sure your sources are viable- most news sources are not. Many stories are made up; many atrocities are also by US backed "rebels".

3rd- the so-called "Christian" country of America has killed a whole lot more Muslims than vs/vs. Maybe we ought to stop the wars? Christians and Jews are protected ( In Iran), naturally , because those religions pre date Islam , others are not. Simple as that.

[truelies]

Why not include Christians and Jews in that while you're at it?

Because the Christians are America, fool.

[freshjiva]

Ahmadinejad is a big government nazi just like the rest of the UN and NATO member nations.
That being said, he's right on foreign policy. At least Iran has never invaded a foreign country in its entire modern history.

[oyarde]

Actually , Iranin govt is even bigger govt than most , read the Constitution they have and see everything they lay claim to.

[Peace Piper]

AFAIK, he never blew up a US passenger jet over our airspace:

"Iran Air Flight 655 was a civilian jet airliner shot down by U.S. missiles on 3 July 1988 as it flew over the Strait of Hormuz at the end of the Iran–Iraq War. The aircraft, an Airbus A300B2-203 operated by Iran Air, was flying from Bandar Abbas, Iran to Dubai, United Arab Emirates. While flying in Iranian airspace over Iran's territorial waters in the Persian Gulf on its usual flight path, it was destroyed by the United States Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes (CG-49). All 290 onboard including 66 children and 16 crew perished...."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
(at the time, some sick little twisted US Pieces of S&*^ suggested that Iran had packed the plane with cadavers and staged the whole thing- USA USA USA)

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/8438/iranair655shootdown.png

And if he ordered the overthrow of another government I haven't heard about it:

"...The 1953 Iranian coup d'état (known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup) was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States under the name TPAJAX Project. The coup saw the transition of Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi from a constitutional monarch to an authoritarian one who relied heavily on United States support to hold on to power until his own overthrow in February 1979...."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNCE6qFHi18

In the last 13 years, the US Gov has bombed Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan and who knows where else.

In the last 60 years, which nations have Iran attacked?

We have overthrown their democratically elected government, shot down a civilian airliner, and encircled the nation with our military bases.

http://socioecohistory.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/iran-encircled.gif

Why should any Iranian worry about little ol' US?


****
eff willard
***

[KingRobbStark]

Like any dictator, with scorn.

[devil21]

This is a curious wrinkle in the Ahmadinejad puzzle. Assuming the usual butchering of his speeches isn't at play here.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57520360/irans-ahmadinejad-wants-a-new-world-order/



(AP) NEW YORK - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday that a new world order needs to emerge, away from years of American "bullying" and domination.

Ahmadinejad spoke to The Associated Press in a wide-ranging interview on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly - his last as president of Iran.

[Brett85]

I think the best refutation of neo-con talking points is just to point out that Ahmadinejad is resigning from office in 2013, and the President of Iran doesn't really have any power. It's an office basically like the Queen of England. I really don't think you can defend the terrible things he says about Israel and the Holocaust.

[juleswin]

Like any dictator, with scorn.

Dictators don't have presidential debates, close elections and they usually don't willingly step down when their term limit is up. You might think their elections are rigged but so is ours, but you don't call the POTUS a dictator.

[juleswin]

Like any dictator, with scorn.

Dictators don't have presidential debates, close elections and they usually don't willingly step down when their term limit is up. You might think their elections are rigged but so is ours, but you don't call the POTUS a dictator.

[Tankbot85]

Got Hannity on right now and he's talking about this guy. Ol' Great American Sean Hannity loves keep that war propaganda machine well-oiled. I almost hope Obama does bomb Iran just so I can hear Sean try to spin his idiot fans into believing that the war they wanted all-along is now a bad thing since it was started by a Democrat. If Romney wins, Hannity will be even more on board with the war effort than he is now.

I listen to him on the way home from work so i can hear the crap the spits out. The war propaganda against Iran has been kicking up strong from him lately. It disgusts me. I have had to turn him off the last few days because of it.

[Cowlesy]

He's a dirtbag and I wish the Iranian people would get rid of him.

[Todd]

We're still revising our thoughts about what happened over thousands of years ago. Why is it that researchers are jailed? Why is researching this issue prohibitited? Where as we can openly question God, the prophet, concepts such as freedom and democracy?

Um...really? In his country? I want what he's smoking.

[libertygrl]

A little more history that is long overlooked.

First of all, there are different types of Jews. The actual Jews who lived peacefully with Palestinians and Arabs for centuries are in fact persecuted today by the communist, atheist Jews who have claimed the land for their own this century. A simple search would go a long way to understanding what has happened in the last 100 years or so.


On Nov. 4, 2003, Reinhard Günzel, a brigadier general, who was head of Germany's Special Forces (KSK), was given a "dishonourable" discharge from the army's services. He was fired because he wrote a letter to Martin Hohmann (MP, CDU), who recently went on record about the Jewish role in Bolshevik Russia; and the General applauded Mr. Hohmann's statements.

Hohmann then made this known to the press, who in turn had a field day.

However, there is one thing that the press mysteriously overlooks. What was said is true.

Isn't it almost "funny" how the TRUTH has become anti-Semitic. I mean, it's an actual FACT here that we're talking about: Jews were behind the Russian revolution. This is not some outlandish statement. It should not be considered anti-Semitic, yet it is.

Jews openly bragged about the Russian revolution and its aftereffects at the time. They gloated. They were the financiers--from Warburg to Jacob Schiff (whose great-grand son recently married Al Gore's daughter, oddly enough). They were the revolutionaries--from Apfelbaum, to Zinoviev, to Molotov, to Trotsky (Bronstein), to Lenin (Ulyanov), etc. They were the bloodthirsty horde in the NKVD who later became the KGB, led by Kaganovich and Berija, who were responsible for liquidating untold millions of innocent Russians, Ukrainians, Hungarians etc.

And, now Jews say, "Who, us? No, Jews had nothing to do with it. You're just anti-Semitic for saying such things."

Even those Jews who might still be alive and who took part in the massacres afterward now deny the massacres had anything to do with Jews. Even though anti-Semitism became a crime punishable by death after the Russian revolution, Jews now say that they were "persecuted." Even though the churches burned while the synagogues were left standing, Jews deny that they were protected. Even though priests were murdered or forced to sweep the streets, while rabbis were put on a pedestal, Jews now say they were the ones persecuted.

There is only one thing that we can conclude from all this: Truth is anti-Semitic.

http://globalfire.tv/nj/03en/jews/perpetrators1.htm


The Execution of

Tsar Nicholas II, 1918

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/nicholas.htm


Winston Churchill described the tumultuous years between 1918 and 1933 as a period of 'formidable transformations'. Germany, defeated in a war not of its own making, was laid prostrate by defeat, revolution and anarchy. Communist revolutionaries eager to capitalise on their overthrow of the Russian state seized power. A British Government White Paper estimated that the Royal Navy's blockade on Germany "caused nearly 800,000 deaths, mainly women and children." Vast tracts of German territory were seized as booty and claims for reparations were so draconian that they effectively turned every German into a slave of the victors.

With the Kaiser (king) in exile, the Workers and Soldiers' Soviets and the Social Democrats 'dismissed' the legitimate Ebert government and proclaimed a Soviet Republic. Armed bands of communists (Spartacists) led by Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebnecht, patrolled the streets. In Bavaria, another Jew, Kurt Eisner had declared the province a Soviet Republic. Soldiers returning from the front were massacred, revolutionaries seized state property and strikes designed to cause maximum damage to the staggering economy were organised. Barracks and naval dockyards were seized and street barricades divided Germany's cities and towns into politico-criminal fiefdoms.
The French occupied the Rhineland and ruled with an iron fist. An ordinary German passer-by might be randomly picked out and smashed to the ground with a rifle butt or fist. The French attempt to separate Bavaria from Germany sparked Adolf Hitler's brave but futile November Putsch.

The Saar and the Rhineland were occupied by French troops; inflation soared out of control until there were 136,000,000 Deutsch Marks to the dollar. Decadence erupted in sleaze. Art was debased as were the German people. Child prostitutes of both sexes could be bought openly on the streets. The world's debased were quick to take advantage of the German nation's descent into the economic chaos of defeat and revolutionaries fought like jackals for the territorial remains.

The peace terms (Versailles Treaty); dictated by the victor nations and notorious for its monstrously unjust nature was heaped upon this volcanic social upheaval.

"The greater part of our troubles is the result of World War I and the bad treaties which ended it." (Alfonso of Bourbon and Orleans. Great Grandson of Queen Victoria)

"Germany suffered most as a consequence of this Peace Treaty and the general insecurity which was bound to arise from it. The unemployment figures rose to a third of the number usually employed in the nation, which means, however, that by counting the families of the unemployed as well there were 26 million people in Germany out of a population of 65 millions faced by an absolutely hopeless future." (Adolf Hitler)

In Russia, the Bolsheviks had seized power. The geographical giant on Germany's eastern borders was locked into civil war, the brutality of which knew no bounds. The tentacles of the emerging internationalism of Communism were spreading like wildfire throughout Europe.

"Germany, with more than 6 million communists was on the verge of a catastrophe which none but those wanting in common sense can possibly ignore. If red terrorism was to have swept over Germany the western countries of Europe would probably also have realised that it is not a matter of indifference to them whether the outposts of a destructive Asian world power stand guard on the Rhine and on the North Sea, or whether the land is populated by peaceful German peasants and working men whose only wish is to make an honest living and to be on friendly terms with other nations. By averting this disaster which was threatening to ruin Germany, the National Socialist movement saved not only the German people, but also rendered the rest of Europe a service of historical merit. The National Socialist revolution has but one aim; To restore order in our own country, to provide work and bread for our starving masses and to lay down the ideas of honour, loyalty and decency as being the basis of our moral code, which, far from doing harm to other nations, can be for the benefit of all." (Adolf Hitler)

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/witness1.htm#3

Great post. Here is another historic perspective that is not really known:

The late Jack Bernstein was a rarity—an American Zionist who actually "returned" to Israel, not for a vacation or to summer on a kibbutz, but to live and die in Israel building a Jewish nation. What makes him almost one of a kind, though, was his ability to see through the sham and hype to the oppressive, racist, parasitic character of Zionism as practiced in modern Israel, and his courage to denounce it with the force and fervor of an Old Testament prophet.

Bernstein tells how it was, how it is, and how it will be—as long as American taxpayers tolerate their leaders’ bowing to every wish and whim of the Ashkenazic (Eastern European) elite which rules Israel. He takes the reader on a guided tour through Israel’s history, institutions and values, demonstrating how the best traditions of Biblical Judaism have been obscured, corrupted, or cast out to make way for the totalitarian, militaristic, chauvinist monster that is the Israel of today.

In Racist Marxist Israel is an irrefutable demonstration that Israeli Jews—and their Zionist kindred around the world—maintain a double standard on political morality and ethics, and that they support themselves, indeed wax fat on, the sweat and tears and toil and money of non-Jews.

Many Jews—and many more non-Jews—won’t like this book. Its author’s insistence that what’s sauce for the Gentile goose must also be sauce for the Zionist gander will leave a bitter taste in the mouths of large segments of America’s self-hating, sackcloth-and-ashes set. All readers of good will, however, will hail Jack Bernstein for his long and arduous march, from dual-loyalist to practicing Zionist to true-red-white-and-blue American patriot, a twentieth-century Paul Revere for all real Americans, Jews and Gentiles alike.

Introduction
Jack Bernstein

Before Israel became a state in 1948, Jews worldwide were filled with Zionist propaganda that Israel would be a homeland for all Jews, a refuge for persecuted Jews, a democratic country and the fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

I am an Ashkenazi Jew who spent the first 25 years of my life in the United States, the country that has given ALL Jews freedom and the opportunity to prosper -- and prosper we Jews did, to the point that one portion of the Jews (the Zionists) have gained a position of political and economic dominance in the U.S.

To fully understand the story I am about to tell, it is important that you understand what Zionism really is. Zionist propaganda has led the American people to believe that Zionism and Judaism are one and the same and that they are religious in nature. This is a blatant lie.

Judaism is a religion; but Zionism is a political movement started mainly by East European (Ashkenazi) Jews who for centuries have been the main force behind communism/socialism. The ultimate goal of the Zionists is one-world government under the control of the Zionists and the Zionist-oriented Jewish international bankers. Communism/socialism are merely tools to help them accomplish their goal.

I was a Victim of Zionist Propaganda

After the 1967 War, we Jews were filled with pride that 'our homeland' had become so powerful and successful. Then too, we had been filled with the false propaganda that Jews in America were being persecuted. So, between 1967 and 1970 approximately 50.000 American Jews fell for this Zionist propaganda and migrated to Israel. I was one of those suckers.

After being filled with all this false Zionist propaganda, I felt that I would have a better chance to succeed in the new Jewish state. There was an added enticement, the spirit and challenge of pioneering and of helping my fellow Jews.

Dual Citizenship

I had no emotional conflict with leaving the U.S. because I was still able to keep my U.S. citizenship and could return to the U.S. at any time. You see, Jews are allowed to be citizens of both Israel and some countries -- U.S. is one of those countries. The U.S. government allows a Jew to be a citizen of both U.S. and Israel.

German Americans cannot be citizens of both the U.S. and Germany. Italian Americans cannot be citizen of both U.S. and Italy. Egyptian-Americans cannot be citizens of both the U.S. and Egypt . . . BUT, a Jewish American can be a citizen of both Israel and the U.S. THIS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THE POWER THE ZIONIST JEWS HAVE OVER THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.

I Arrive in the "Jewish Paradise"

Before leaving for Israel, a Jewish friend of mine had made arrangements for me to stay a few days with her sister, Fawzia Daboul and her spinster aunt. After arriving at Lod Airport just outside of Tel Aviv, I took a bus to the home of Miss Daboul and her aunt. When I saw Fawzia, it was love at first sight. I started calling her 'Ziva' her Hebrew name. Ziva is a Sephardic Jewess from Iraq who, like myself, had fallen for the Zionist propaganda and had migrated to Israel. She was employed as a hairdresser.

The Kibbutz

After visiting with Ziva and her her aunt for two days, I left to spend 6 months at Kibbutz 'Ein Hashofet' one of the well over 150 such communes then operating in Israel. Since then, many more have been started -- especially in the territory taken from the Palestinian Arabs. A kibbutz is a farming and sometimes industrial venture. It is important to explain that Israel's Kibbutz system is a Marxist idea brought to Israel by the Ashkenazi Jews who migrated to Israel mainly from Poland and Russia. These Jews are part of that bunch of Jews know as the BOLSHEVIKS. Before 1917, they were the force that laid the foundation for the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 in Russia and the start of Communism.

Again, I want to point out, even emphasize, that it is some of that same bunch of Ashkenazi, Communist/Socialist Jews who migrated to Israel, gained control of the Zionist Movement and have dominated the government of Israel since its beginning in 1948.

Now, back to the kibbutz -

Prior to 1967, most of the work on the Kibbutz was done by Jews. But, since the 1967 War, the work has been done by Arabs who are paid a very low wage, and by volunteers from overseas. Members of the Kibbutz (all Jews) share all things equally. They receive clothing, food and a small allowance. All profits from the venture go into the Kibbutz account for future use. EACH OF THESE KIBBUTZ ARE AFFILIATED WITH ONE OF ISRAEL'S MARXIST PARTIES ranging from SOCIALIST TO HARD-CORE COMMUNIST.

The Kibbutz I was in was not hardcore communist. Yet, I was happy to leave after 4 months -- two months earlier than originally planned. During the time I was working in the Kibbutz, I carried on courtship with Ziva. She was one of the reasons I left the Kibbutz after only 4 months -- we were to be married.

Our Marriage Created Problems

The marriage ceremony was held in the Sephardic Synagogue. The ceremony was simple but beautiful. Ziva and I were happy, but our marriage created serious problems. You see, Ziva is a Sephardic Jewess and I am an Ashkenazi Jew. For an Ashkenazi Jew to marry a Sephardic Jew is frowned upon in Israel by the ruling Ashkenazi's. To understand why this is the case, you must realize the difference between the Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews.

The powerful Zionist propaganda machine has led the American people to believe that a Jew is a Jew -- one race of people and that they are "God's Chosen People". I will deal with the "God's Chosen People" LIE later. First, it is important for you to understand that Jews are NOT one race of people.

There are two distinct groups of Jews in the world and they come from two different areas of the world -- the Sephardic Jews from the Middle East and North Africa and the Ashkenazi Jews come from Eastern Europe. The Sephardic is the oldest group and it is they, if any, who are the Jews described in the Bible because they lived in the area described in the Bible. They are blood relatives to the Arabs -- the only difference between them is the religion.

The Ashkenazi Jews, who now compromise 90% of the Jews in the world, had a rather strange beginning. According to historians, many of them Jewish, the Ashkenazi Jews came into existence about 1200 years ago. It happened this way:

At the eastern edge of Europe, there lived a tribe of people know as the Khazars. About the year 740 A.D., the Khazar king and his court decided they should adopt a religion for their people. So, representatives of the three major religions, Christianity, Islam and Judaism, were invited to present their religious doctrines. The Khazars chose Judaism, but it wasn't for religious reasons. If the Khazars had chosen Islam, they would have angered the strong Christian world. If they had chosen Christianity, they would have angered the strong Islamic world. So, they played it safe -- they chose Judaism. It wasn't for religious reasons the Khazars chose Judaism; it was for political reasons.

Sometime during the 13th century, the Khazars were driven from their land and they migrated westward with most of them settling in Poland and Russia. These Khazars are now known as Ashkenazi Jews. Because these Khazar Ashkenazi Jews merely chose Judaism, they are not really Jews -- at least not blood Jews.

Throughout their history, these Polish and Russian Ashkenazi Jews practiced communism/socialism and worked to have their ideas implemented in these countries.

By the late 1800s significant numbers of these communist/socialist Jews were found in Germany, the Balkans and eventually all over Europe. Because of their interference in the social and governmental affairs of Russia, they became the target of persecution by the Czars. Because of this, migration of these communist/socialist oriented Jews began. Some went to Palestine; some to Central and South America; and a large number of them came to the U.S.

Political Zionism is Born

In 1897, the First Zionist Congress was held in Basle, Switzerland. At this Congress, it was decided to work toward the establishment of a Jewish state and a search for land on which to build this Jewish state began. Great Britain offered the Zionists land in Africa. This the Zionists rejected: they wanted Palestine!

At the time, Palestine was inhabited by a half a million Palestinian Arabs and a few Palestinian Jews who are blood related and who had lived together in peace for centuries. With Palestine as their choice for a homeland, European Ashkenazi Jews began migrating to Palestine. As I explained earlier, most were communist/socialist oriented with some of them being radical Bolshevik communists whose aim is world domination.

So when you think of Jews, especially as related to Israel, keep in mind that there is a great difference between Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews. They are not one united people. They are divided socially, politically and especially racially. Now, back to Ziva, a Sephardic Jewess and I an Ashkenazi Jew, and our lives in the so-called democratic country of Israel.

Sephardic Jews -- Second Class Citizens

For the first three years of our marriage, it was necessary for us to live with Ziva's aunt. This was because of the critical housing shortage in Israel and because of racism. Housing is allotted as follows:

● Ashkenazi Jews who have lived in Israel for many years are given first choice.
● Second in line are Ashkenazi Jews from Europe -- especially if they are married or marry an Israel-born Ashkenazi Jew.
● The next favored are Ashkenazi Jews from the U.S. -- especially if they marry an Israeli born Ashkenazi.
● Sephardic Jews have the next choice of whatever housing is left.
● At the bottom of the list are Moslems, Druze and Christians.

Opportunities for employment follow the same pattern: Ashkenazi Jews get the choicest jobs, Sephardic Jews next, and Moslem, Druze and Christians fill the menial jobs with a great many left unemployed. Even through I was an Ashkenazi Jew from the U.S., I was placed lower on the list for housing because I married a Sephardic Jewess.

Being denied housing was my second experience of the intense racism that exist in Israel. From the very beginning of my arrival in Israel, many slurs were yelled at me. We American Jews were merely being tolerated. Because Israel, to survive, must depend on gifts of American Jews and the sale of worthless Israeli Bonds in America, there is jealousy among the elite Israeli Ashkenazi Jews toward American Jews, even if the American Jews are also Ashkenazi. Many times I was told, "Go Home!" and, "We want your money, but not you."

However, there was a portion of the American Jews who were welcome and given favored treatment. They were the card-carrying communist Jews.

Of the 50.000 American Jews who, like myself, had migrated to Israel between 1967 and 1970 about 20% (10.000) of them were Marxist oriented with a great number of them actual card carrying communists. They were welcomed by the Israeli authorities and local Ashkenazi and were given favored treatment -- housing, jobs and social life. It must be noted besides coming from the U.S., a great number of communist Jews were migrating to Israel from Chile, Argentina and South Africa.

Of the 50.000 who had migrated to Israel during that time, 80% of us eventually returned to the U.S. The 20% who remained were those who were card-carrying communist or sympathetic to Marxism.

Three Faces of Israel

From what I have told you so far, you must have the idea that Israel is a Marxist (socialist/communist) country. This would be correct. But, Israel has three faces: Communism, Fascism and democracy. The Ashkenazi Jews who migrated to Israel from Russia brought with them the ideology of socialism/communism and have put into practice much of that ideology. The Ashkenazi Jews who migrated to Israel from Germany, while sympathetic to communism and support it, tend to favor the practices of Nazi-style fascism. During World War II, in Germany these elite Zionist Ashkenazi Jews worked closely with Hitler's Gestapo in persecuting the lower class German Jews and delivering them to concentration camps.

Now living in Israel, these elite Zionist Jews, who were well trained in Nazi-style fascism and favor it, have imposed many facets of fascism on Israel. To give the impression that Israel is a democracy, members of the Knesset (Israel Congress) are elected -- an odd type of election. This is where Israel's so-called democracy stops. It doesn't make any difference which party wins an election, the LIKUD or LABOR, the elite Zionist Jews rule in a dictatorial manner -- giving favors to the elite clique and brutally suppressing any dissent.

In the Zionist/communist scheme of world domination, it is Israel's role to continually stir up trouble in the Middle East. Since wars are a big part of this scheme of aggression, it is only natural that from early childhood on, Israeli youth are trained mentally and physically for war. For instance: Israel has its equivalent of Hitler's youth group. It is the Gadna; and all high school and junior high students are required to participate -- boys and girls. Like Hitler's youth group, the youth in Israel's Gadna are dressed in khaki uniforms. They take training and engage in paramilitary exercises.

Even at play, guns and thoughts of war are present. When on a picnic, instead of taking along baseball or soccer equipment, they take sub-machine guns and assault rifles and practice shooting and playing military games.

Once graduated from high school, all young boys are required to serve 3 years in the army (2 years for girls) or 4 years in the navy or air force (3 for girls). Ultra orthodox religious Jews are exempt from military service.

Once out of the service, a number of the ex-service people join the Shin Bet, the equivalent of Hitler's Gestapo. Like the Gestapo, they engage in repressing anyone who acts or speaks out against the Marxist/Fascist government of Zionist dominated Israel.

Like in Nazi Germany, all people in Israel are required to carry identity booklets called "Teudat Zehut" in Hebrew.

One day I changed jackets and forgot to take out my ID booklet when I went down town in Tel Aviv. A police officer approached me and asked for my "Teudat Zehut". I told him I had left it in my other jacket. Because I didn't have my ID booklet with me, I was taken to the police station. At the police station, the desk sergeant informed me that for not having my ID booklet with me, I could be jailed for up to 16 days without even being taken before a judge. All that was necessary is for the Police Lieutenant to sign a "Remand Order".

I asked permission to make a telephone call to my wife and tell her to bring my ID booklet to the station.

The sergeant allowed me two hours to have my "Teudat Zehut" produced. I called my wife and she brought my "Teudat Zehut" -- arriving just minutes before the 2 hour deadline expired. If she had been late in arriving, I would have been jailed for 16 days for not having my ID booklet with me. This is just one indication that Israel is a 'Police State' and not a democracy.

Concerning Nazism/Fascism, please let me clear a point. Germans are an admirable people -- I dare say even great. But in Germany, the general population were victims of the Nazis who through cunning and brutality gained power. In Germany, the average Jews were victims of the Zionist elite who worked hand in hand with the Nazis. Many of those same Zionist Jews who, in Germany, had worked with the Nazis, came to Israel and joined hands with the Zionist/Communist Jews from Poland and Russia. It is the two faces of communism and Nazi-style fascism that rule Israel. Democracy is merely an illusion.

Regarding the tie between the elite Ashkenazi Jew and the Nazis, take a look at the word 'Ashkenazi' -- look again 'Ashke-NAZI'.

Interesting isn't it?

There is a great confusion regarding the relationship of fascism to communism. Fascism is national socialism. Communism is international socialism.

Israel's Economy

Economically, Israel is bankrupt. Of course, this could have been predicted because Israel's economic structure is based on socialism.

Whenever a government of a state and its citizens spend more money than the value of the goods produced, economic bankruptcy will result. If it were not for aid from America, Israel's economy would have collapsed long ago. Israel is a 'welfare state' in every sense of the word -- it is America's most favored welfare recipient.

While America's farmers, small businessmen and laborers are struggling to survive, the U.S. Government, dominated by Zionist Jews, are draining the pockets and purses of American taxpayers to support Israel's socialist economy and war machine.

Since the Israeli government knows, and the favored Zionists know, that the Zionist pressure in America will ensure that America will keep sending them massive amounts of money, Israel's government and its favored citizens spend money like drunken sailors. This practice leads to inflation and eventually to an economic collapse.

Comparing Israel to drunken sailors is unfair to sailors. Sailors spend their OWN money -- Israel spends money it gets from America. Because Israel is a welfare state depending mainly on American aid for survival, it is on a down-hill slide. In 1982, Israel's inflation rate was 130%.

In 1983, it was 200%, and this year (1984) it is expected to exceed 400%. That means a hamburger that cost $1.00 last January will have risen to $5.00 by the end of December. History shows that no nation mired in economic problems as Israel has become, has ever avoided an economic collapse. Only with a massive increase in American financial aid can an economic collapse be averted -- even then, this solution would only be temporary.

Regarding the destructive tendencies of socialism, there are circumstances that allow a country to successfully provide social programs to help its people. It is possible in a country that has sufficient financial resource and where its citizens are deeply religious and considerate their fellowmen.

NONE of this exists in Israel. Even in countries where conditions are ideal there lingers a danger. Since the government of the country provides for the needs of its citizens, most of these citizens have a tendency to lose incentive to work hard; and a country with a complacent citizenry is easily conquered.

Visitors to Israel

Tourism is one of Israel's main sources of income. The largest group of visitors are American Jews. But, there are also many American Christians who want to visit the holy shrines and to see the land of 'God's Chosen People'.

These Christians come away very impressed and filled with religious fervor.

While in Israel, Jews and Gentiles alike are carefully watched so that they do not stray and happen to see the sordid side of Israel -- the true Israel.

Like in Soviet Russia and other communist countries, visitors to Israel are taken on carefully planned guided tours. They are shown the religious sites, the universities, the lush orchards, the technical accomplishments, the arts, and to stir sympathy, they are taken to visit the Holocaust Museum. But, kept from the eyes of the tourists are the ghettos, the prisons where political prisoners, mostly Arabs and Sephardic Jews, are subjected to the most inhumane forms of torture. The tourists do not see the widespread crime activities and the corruption and cooperation between organized crime bosses and government and police officials.

The tourists do not learn of the true inner workings of Israel's Marxist/Fascist government; nor do they see Israel's Racism.

I met one American Tourist who couldn't help telling me about the wonderful religious feeling she had from being in Israel -- the Holy Land. I remarked to her, "Just try giving a Bible to a local Jew and you will see how much religion and religious freedom there is in Israel. If seen by the police, you will be arrested.

Regarding the Holocaust Museum, I cannot help but comment:

THE HOLOCAUST MAY NOT HAVE HAPPENED -- IF --

1) If the Zionist leadership in Germany had not cooperated with the Nazis.
2) If the Zionists, world-wide, had not persuaded various countries to refuse to accept Jews from Germany. The Zionists in America persuaded President Roosevelt to shut the door and not allow Jewish refugees into America before the war when there was still a chance for Jews to leave Germany.

It must be added that many people, including Jews, question whether the Holocaust happened as portrayed by the Zionist propagandists -- at least not to the extent the Zionist claim.

Religion

The land on which the present state of Israel has been built, formerly Palestine, was once walked upon by Moses, Jesus and Muhammad.

Since Palestine was the site of many religious events and has many religious sites, it is rightfully referred to as the HOLY LAND. So, one would think that Palestine, now Israel, would tend to have an air of holiness about it.

When Palestinian Moslems and Palestinian Jews occupied Palestine, there was a religious aura. But, Since the Zionists took over the area and set up the state of Israel, it is one of the most sinful nations in the world where only 5% of the Jews are religious. It is interesting to note that who are strongly religious are Arab Moslems and Arab Christians who make up a small minority in Israel.

Israeli laws suppress all religion -- For instance, it is against the law to try and convert a Jew to another religion even if the Jew is an atheist or humanist.

A Christian is permitted to preach the gospel in a church building, but for the clergy or anyone to even tell one about teachings in the Bible outside the church building will bring a 5 years prison sentence.

For a Christian to give a Bible or religious article to a Jew will also bring a 5 years sentence. Even an act of kindness by a Christian toward a Jew, such as giving a gift of food, can be interpreted as trying to convert the Jew to Christianity and can bring a 5 year prison sentence.

This same law of religious suppression applies to those of the Islamic faith who in an act of kindness give a gift of any kind to a Jew. A 5 year prison sentence can result.

The treatment of religious Jews is touchy for the ruling Zionists. World-wide, Jews and non-Jews view Israel as a land where Jews may practice their religion without persecution. Therefore, the Zionists do not dare risk suppressing Judaism for fear of arousing world opinion against them. So, the ruling Zionists merely tolerate the religious practices of the small minority of religious Jews in Israel.

God's Chosen People

The American people have been led to believe that Jews are "God's Chosen People". This myth was started by a small group of Jews. A few Jewish leaders took excerpts from the Bible and interpreted them as "Chosen People". But, isn't it odd that it is not the religious Jews who claim to be "God's Chosen People". It is the atheistic non-believing Jews who claim that honor.

Leading the cry, "We are God's Chosen People" are the Zionist/Marxist (Ashkenazi) Jews who for political purposes chose Judaism and who don't have a drop of biblical Jewish blood in them.

One Israeli religious Jew said it well, "At one time we Jews were chosen by God to be his messengers. But, long ago we forfeited that right".

Anyone who has read the Bible with an open mind knows that God gave Jews of that time special favors. But, it was in the form of covenants. In these covenants were conditions -- the conditions were that God demanded the Jews obey His Word. Time after time the Jews broke the covenants. They rejected God and turned to adoring mammon. It doesn't take a biblical scholar to realize that long ago even the real Jews lost the right of being God's chosen people.

In comparing the degree to which the followers of the 3 major religions practice their beliefs, I make this observation:

Judaism -- Few Jews, Sephardic or Ashkenazi, are religious. This is true in America, in Israel and world-wide.

Christianity -- The Christians religion has felt the influence of Jewish meddling and infiltration (especially in America) resulting in confusion and bickering between the various Christian denominations. This has led to a 'luke-warm' attitude among most Christians toward their religion. There is evidence to prove that Jews, or one of their many fronts, have started many of the Christian denominations and thus dominate doctrine.

Islam -- Moslems, who follow the teachings of Islam, are by far the most fervent of the 3 major religions in following their religious beliefs.

The Judeo-Christian ethic we hear so much about in America is a big joke -- the result of an intense Zionist propaganda campaign.

I'll toss in one last thought about the "God's Chosen People" myth: God said, 'Beware of those who call themselves Jews and are not, for they lie'. Could it be the Ashkenazi Jews are the people to whom God was referring?

Israel Stirs Perpetual War

In the Holy land, it would seem that there would be peace. Instead, war and preparation for war is ever present. The Israeli military machine is recognized as the fourth most powerful in the world. From the standpoint of the amount of planes, tanks and other fighting equipment, plus the fact that it is of the latest design, does make the military machine of Israel very powerful. But, in the army, serious weaknesses have developed.

Before exploring the weaknesses of Israel's army, let's briefly review each of the wars in which Israel has been involved -- an average of one every 8 years since it became a state in 1948.

1948 War -- Just after Israel had declared itself a state, Palestinians and other Arabs attacked the Israeli Army which had been formed out of the terrorist groups, the Irgun and Stem Gang. The reason for the attack by Palestinians was to try and regain their homes which, through murder and terrorism, the Zionists had confiscated. The Palestinians had been a peaceful people and were not trained in the art of warfare, while the Ashkenazi Zionist Jews who had migrated from Soviet Russia, Poland and Germany had more knowledge of tactical warfare.

In addition, Zionists had built up a large amount of arms which they had purchased from the U.S. and communist countries and had illegally smuggled into the area. The Arabs were defeated and in the process, Israel conquered more Palestinian territory.

1956 -- Egypt owned the land through which the Suez Canal flows. Egypt's President Nasser declared his intention of taking over operation of the canal from England. This would have hurt England's colonial empire. So, England along with France and Israel conspired to attack Egypt.

With Egypt nearly subdued, America's President Eisenhower stepped in and ordered England, France and Israel to withdraw. At the time, the United States was still militarily strong enough to back Eisenhower's order, so England, France and Israel did withdraw. This was the only time during U.S.-Israeli relations that a U.S. president put the interests of America ahead of Israel's interest.

1967 War -- Tension was mounting between Egypt and Israel over territory located between the two countries -- the Sinai and Gaza Strip.

To help Israel get an unfair advantage, the Soviet Union resorted to trickery: Soviet diplomats in Egypt told President Nasser to threaten war but not attack. Then Soviet diplomats told Israel's leaders to threaten war and then go ahead and attack. This act of treachery enabled Israel to attack while Egypt was 'off-guard' and destroy Egypt's military capacity in 6 days.

It has been the goal of Israel's leaders to take over all the land between the Nile and Euphrates Rivers. Besides the Sinai and Gaza Strip which Israel intended to take from Egypt during the war, they desired the West Bank which was part of Jordan, and the Golan Heights which was part of Syria. So during the 1967 War, Israel resorted to trickery.

Israel had the technical equipment to intercept radio messages and change these messages (boil them) and then send them on to their destination. During the war, Israel intercepted messages from Egypt to Jordan and Syria and changed the messages, tricking Jordan and Syria into entering the war. The Arab countries were defeated and Israel took a big step toward it's goal of conquest by occupying the Golan Heights and the West Bank as well as the Sinai and Gaza Strip.

Even though Israel's attack on Egypt is called the 1967 War and often referred to as the Six-day War, it can hardly be called a war. Egypt, the most powerful Arab nation at that time, didn't have a chance to fight. Trickery on the part of the Soviet Union and Israel as I have explained, rendered the so-called 1967 War nothing more than a treacherous act of terrorism for which the Soviets and Israel are famous.

For part 2: h ttp://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2006/10/06/the_life_of_an_american_jew_in_racist_ma_2

[Cutlerzzz]

I never have advocated murder. I only advocate what is according to Islam. People who convert out of Islam and become any other religion, are not considered to be a part of that religion, only apostates. So therefore there are not 'Christians' according to Sharia, just apostates.

There are laws against treason. They commit treason in an Islamic state, they face the consequences, just like in any other state.

In your mind:

Committing Treason in a country that is not yours + Trial = "Wanting to kill" or "advocating murder"

While American Christians go on killing Muslims daily in their own countries without any trial and you have nothing to say against that.

Now let's compare the two situations here.

There's some "pastor" in Iran who "converted" from Islam to Christianity in Iran, which is a crime punishable by death. The "pastor" was tried and is now awaiting execution.

Then there were infants in Iraq, who were summarily shot by foreign US troops. No trial for the infants. Can you tell me what crime these infants committed against the wonderful US government?

If you have a problem with Sharia, then you have a problem with Muslims. Lucky for you haters, America is killing Muslims on a daily basis without any trials (which you get under Sharia) so be happy about that.

None of the Iran haters has answered this:

When did the US ever hold a trial for any of the Muslim children it has killed?"

I wonder if I will ever get an answer.

So yes, you support murdering anyone who converts away from Islam. You're a barbarian.

[KingNothing]

So yes, you support murdering anyone who converts away from Islam. You're a barbarian.

Man, I genuinely have liked ExPatPaki. If the poster really does support that complete nonsense, I'll do a 180 on my stance.

[KingNothing]

A little more history that is long overlooked.

First of all, there are different types of Jews. The actual Jews who lived peacefully with Palestinians and Arabs for centuries are in fact persecuted today by the communist, atheist Jews who have claimed the land for their own this century. A simple search would go a long way to understanding what has happened in the last 100 years or so.


On Nov. 4, 2003, Reinhard Günzel, a brigadier general, who was head of Germany's Special Forces (KSK), was given a "dishonourable" discharge from the army's services. He was fired because he wrote a letter to Martin Hohmann (MP, CDU), who recently went on record about the Jewish role in Bolshevik Russia; and the General applauded Mr. Hohmann's statements.

Hohmann then made this known to the press, who in turn had a field day.

However, there is one thing that the press mysteriously overlooks. What was said is true.

Isn't it almost "funny" how the TRUTH has become anti-Semitic. I mean, it's an actual FACT here that we're talking about: Jews were behind the Russian revolution. This is not some outlandish statement. It should not be considered anti-Semitic, yet it is.

Jews openly bragged about the Russian revolution and its aftereffects at the time. They gloated. They were the financiers--from Warburg to Jacob Schiff (whose great-grand son recently married Al Gore's daughter, oddly enough). They were the revolutionaries--from Apfelbaum, to Zinoviev, to Molotov, to Trotsky (Bronstein), to Lenin (Ulyanov), etc. They were the bloodthirsty horde in the NKVD who later became the KGB, led by Kaganovich and Berija, who were responsible for liquidating untold millions of innocent Russians, Ukrainians, Hungarians etc.

And, now Jews say, "Who, us? No, Jews had nothing to do with it. You're just anti-Semitic for saying such things."

Even those Jews who might still be alive and who took part in the massacres afterward now deny the massacres had anything to do with Jews. Even though anti-Semitism became a crime punishable by death after the Russian revolution, Jews now say that they were "persecuted." Even though the churches burned while the synagogues were left standing, Jews deny that they were protected. Even though priests were murdered or forced to sweep the streets, while rabbis were put on a pedestal, Jews now say they were the ones persecuted.

There is only one thing that we can conclude from all this: Truth is anti-Semitic.

http://globalfire.tv/nj/03en/jews/perpetrators1.htm


The Execution of

Tsar Nicholas II, 1918

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/nicholas.htm


Winston Churchill described the tumultuous years between 1918 and 1933 as a period of 'formidable transformations'. Germany, defeated in a war not of its own making, was laid prostrate by defeat, revolution and anarchy. Communist revolutionaries eager to capitalise on their overthrow of the Russian state seized power. A British Government White Paper estimated that the Royal Navy's blockade on Germany "caused nearly 800,000 deaths, mainly women and children." Vast tracts of German territory were seized as booty and claims for reparations were so draconian that they effectively turned every German into a slave of the victors.

With the Kaiser (king) in exile, the Workers and Soldiers' Soviets and the Social Democrats 'dismissed' the legitimate Ebert government and proclaimed a Soviet Republic. Armed bands of communists (Spartacists) led by Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebnecht, patrolled the streets. In Bavaria, another Jew, Kurt Eisner had declared the province a Soviet Republic. Soldiers returning from the front were massacred, revolutionaries seized state property and strikes designed to cause maximum damage to the staggering economy were organised. Barracks and naval dockyards were seized and street barricades divided Germany's cities and towns into politico-criminal fiefdoms.
The French occupied the Rhineland and ruled with an iron fist. An ordinary German passer-by might be randomly picked out and smashed to the ground with a rifle butt or fist. The French attempt to separate Bavaria from Germany sparked Adolf Hitler's brave but futile November Putsch.

The Saar and the Rhineland were occupied by French troops; inflation soared out of control until there were 136,000,000 Deutsch Marks to the dollar. Decadence erupted in sleaze. Art was debased as were the German people. Child prostitutes of both sexes could be bought openly on the streets. The world's debased were quick to take advantage of the German nation's descent into the economic chaos of defeat and revolutionaries fought like jackals for the territorial remains.

The peace terms (Versailles Treaty); dictated by the victor nations and notorious for its monstrously unjust nature was heaped upon this volcanic social upheaval.

"The greater part of our troubles is the result of World War I and the bad treaties which ended it." (Alfonso of Bourbon and Orleans. Great Grandson of Queen Victoria)

"Germany suffered most as a consequence of this Peace Treaty and the general insecurity which was bound to arise from it. The unemployment figures rose to a third of the number usually employed in the nation, which means, however, that by counting the families of the unemployed as well there were 26 million people in Germany out of a population of 65 millions faced by an absolutely hopeless future." (Adolf Hitler)

In Russia, the Bolsheviks had seized power. The geographical giant on Germany's eastern borders was locked into civil war, the brutality of which knew no bounds. The tentacles of the emerging internationalism of Communism were spreading like wildfire throughout Europe.

"Germany, with more than 6 million communists was on the verge of a catastrophe which none but those wanting in common sense can possibly ignore. If red terrorism was to have swept over Germany the western countries of Europe would probably also have realised that it is not a matter of indifference to them whether the outposts of a destructive Asian world power stand guard on the Rhine and on the North Sea, or whether the land is populated by peaceful German peasants and working men whose only wish is to make an honest living and to be on friendly terms with other nations. By averting this disaster which was threatening to ruin Germany, the National Socialist movement saved not only the German people, but also rendered the rest of Europe a service of historical merit. The National Socialist revolution has but one aim; To restore order in our own country, to provide work and bread for our starving masses and to lay down the ideas of honour, loyalty and decency as being the basis of our moral code, which, far from doing harm to other nations, can be for the benefit of all." (Adolf Hitler)

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/witness1.htm#3

Is this post anti-Semitic, or just completely ridiculous?

You realize that you're repeatedly lumping all Jews together, right? Even those who were communist and hated religion? And those who played absolutely no role in the Soviet Revolution, or any other negative event? You realize this would be like criticizing all Christians for any deplorable act one in that flock perpetrated? That's an insane position to hold.

And you quote someone who said that the National Socialist "saved" German from disaster. Riiiiiiiight.

You probably deserve a neg-rep for the post.

[pcosmar]

Is this post anti-Semitic, or just completely ridiculous?


Any time someone here uses the term Anti-Semitic,, without understanding the meaning of the word (and who created it and why) the deserve a Neg Rep.

[KingNothing]

Any time someone here uses the term Anti-Semitic,, without understanding the meaning of the word (and who created it and why) the deserve a Neg Rep.


Should I have said "stupid, bigoted, and Jew-hating" instead to be more accurate?

[pcosmar]

Should I have said "stupid, bigoted, and Jew-hating" instead to be more accurate?

NO.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?330008-Some-History

I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.


Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

There are people that claim to be Jews.. They are not and they cause the hatred for Jews.
They created Zionism.
Zionism is not Judaism.
http://www.nkusa.org/aboutus/zionism/judaism_isnot_zionism.cfm


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfTkqfMpxb0

[ClydeCoulter]

ROFLMAO, derailed thread is derailed.

This went from what do you think of this man, to arguments about governments, religions, history, etc.....

edit: I kinda like him, BTW.

[Carlybee]

Dislike. Why would I like someone who supports treating women like dogmeat? Also don't care for Netanyahu. I am an equal opportunity disdainer.

[pcosmar]

ROFLMAO, derailed thread is derailed.

This went from what do you think of this man, to arguments about governments, religions, history, etc.....

edit: I kinda like him, BTW.

Well.. It did show the total ignorance of some posters here.

The man is NOT a dictator. he has no power and makes no policy.
He is simply a spokesman.

The mis-quotes have been exposed for the media propaganda that they are.

Sadly,, even in light of much evidence some still chose to believe lies.

I would like to sit down with the guy and talk.. He strikes me as intelligent and likeable.
Doubt I would even have that chance.

[ClydeCoulter]

Dislike. Why would I like someone who supports treating women like dogmeat? Also don't care for Netanyahu. I am an equal opportunity disdainer.

Okay, since the thread is derailed anyway.

I have a daughter and a wife that would love to stay home and take care of their children, homeschool, housekeep, etc..

Why can't they?

Well, there are several reasons. One, that's hard to do while the "invisible hand" is in your wallet devalueing the value of everything you try to save as well as future earnings.

Yes, the PTB love the idea of both parents working and having a career and all. They can have their "invisible hands" in two wallets.

Also, there is the disrespect shown for the housewife and mother who doesn't have a career. No, you don't think so? Ever watch TV? The average person is getting just the right propanda showing you can't trust her at home you better send to her work and don't let her be idle, etc., etc., etc.

So, you think Iranians disrespect their women?

Maybe our women are respected more as they are called all kinds of pet names which show just what part of the body is wanting to do what to what part of their body? Maybe they are respected as they are made fun of when they get excited after working all day and night accomplishing something only to be told the next morning during that excitement by those men coming to work, "What, you get some new curtains or something".

[Tudo]

I'm sure he broke from his language when he said it too. just like when he said in perfect English "I want to get a nuke and wipe Israel of the map". lol

Oh that's hillarious. Do you have a link to that exact statement?

[Carlybee]

Okay, since the thread is derailed anyway.

I have a daughter and a wife that would love to stay home and take care of their children, homeschool, housekeep, etc..

Why can't they?

Well, there are several reasons. One, that's hard to do while the "invisible hand" is in your wallet devalueing the value of everything you try to save as well as future earnings.

Yes, the PTB love the idea of both parents working and having a career and all. They can have their "invisible hands" in two wallets.

Also, there is the disrespect shown for the housewife and mother who doesn't have a career. No, you don't think so? Ever watch TV? The average person is getting just the right propanda showing you can't trust her at home you better send to her work and don't let her be idle, etc., etc., etc.

So, you think Iranians disrespect their women?

Maybe our women are respected more as they are called all kinds of pet names which show just what part of the body is wanting to do what to what part of their body? Maybe they are respected as they are made fun of when they get excited after working all day and night accomplishing something only to be told the next morning during that excitement by those men coming to work, "What, you get some new curtains or something".


You should educate yourself on how Iranian women are treated under Sharia Law and the Islamic Penal Code.

[awake]

Just another man with too much power he doesn't deserve.

[BenIsForRon]

Um, he kills and imprisons dissidents and political opponents. Anyone that thinks this guy is "alright" needs to re-evaluate their life.

[dannno]

Um, he kills and imprisons dissidents and political opponents. Anyone that thinks this guy is "alright" needs to re-evaluate their life.

Well when you have the CIA and various global intelligence agencies constantly trying to undermine your country's soveirgnty and spending billions of dollars trying to overthrow your democratically elected leadership, sometimes you have to play a little dirty. Imagine if you were a well-intending leader in another country, just trying to keep your people safe and happy, and you had all these people coming in an fucking with you, trying to make you look bad and funding efforts to have you overthrown.

Not saying he's perfect, I don't think anybody here is trying to imply that he's perfect.. More that he's a lot better than he is made out to be. And the imprisoning political dissidents, much of that is probably manufactured as part of the propaganda campaign against him so it's hard for me to take it too seriously.

[pcosmar]

Um, he kills and imprisons dissidents and political opponents. Anyone that thinks this guy is "alright" needs to re-evaluate their life.

He doesn't do shit.. He is the spokesman. He has NO POWERS.

The ignorance here is astounding.
:(


Just another man with too much power he doesn't deserve.

He has no power.
He makes NO laws.
He makes NO decisions.

The supreme leader and a counsel of Elders do that.
He is only their spokesman.

[P3ter_Griffin]

I think he's an intelligent man when it comes to things like the expectations of sovereignty, non-intervention, and such. But he doesn't practice what he preaches, or at least doesn't seem to think Iran should be held to those standards. His elimination of Israel stance is a perfect example of that, as is the Iranian support for terrorist groups, support for Syrian government, etc. It may well be true he has no hand in the decision of who Iran monetarily or militarily supports, but then why doesn't he rail against his own government for doing the same things he rails our government for doing? And, I don't think its reasonable to think people will be willing to have a rational conversation with him/Iran until he stops with the destroy Israel crap. There is just no benefit in bringing it up. Overall, I think he's a dummy and is hindering our attempts to get a non-interventionist government in place.

[BenIsForRon]

Not saying he's perfect, I don't think anybody here is trying to imply that he's perfect.. More that he's a lot better than he is made out to be. And the imprisoning political dissidents, much of that is probably manufactured as part of the propaganda campaign against him so it's hard for me to take it too seriously.

Dude, were you not watching the protests last year, when they shutting down twitter and arresting protest leaders? He's just as shitty as any other dictator. He fucking sucks, he is against human freedom.

Just because I acknowledge that doesn't mean I'm making a case for the invasion of Iran.


He doesn't do shit.. He is the spokesman. He has NO POWERS.

The ignorance here is astounding.
:(

I know about the fucking Ayatollahs. He is part of that structure though, and he's certainly not trying to stop dissidents from being arrested and shot. Therefore: scumbag piece of shit plutocrat.

[pcosmar]

I think he's an intelligent man when it comes to things like the expectations of sovereignty, non-intervention, and such. But he doesn't practice what he preaches, or at least doesn't seem to think Iran should be held to those standards. His elimination of Israel stance is a perfect example of that, as is the Iranian support for terrorist groups, support for Syrian government, etc. It may well be true he has no hand in the decision of who Iran monetarily or militarily supports, but then why doesn't he rail against his own government for doing the same things he rails our government for doing? And, I don't think its reasonable to think people will be willing to have a rational conversation with him/Iran until he stops with the destroy Israel crap. There is just no benefit in bringing it up. Overall, I think he's a dummy and is hindering our attempts to get a non-interventionist government in place.

Personally,,I can hardly wait for Zionism to be wiped from the face of the earth.

But to my understanding that will not be till Christ returns and wipes it out himself.

even so,,,

[bunklocoempire]

Our house guest was reading the paper last night while I was making some dinner and he says:

(right outta the blue -no indication this was comin')

Him: "They're saying Obama doesn't have the guts to arrest that Iran guy"

Me: "Who?"

Him: "Amoo -Amooda Amabadoo.."

Me: "Ahmadinejad?"

Him: "Yeah, they're saying Obama doesn't have the guts to arrest him, we should arrest him when he sets foot in New York"

Me: "Arrest him for what?"

Him: "Arrest him for the holocaust"

Me: "Which holocaust?"

Him: "Well he said he was going to wipe Israel off the map, and he's getting those nukes"

Me: "Israel has nukes, can't they take care of themselves? What law did he break?"

Him: "All kinds of laws, UN laws, U.S. laws, the guy is bad news"

Me: "Well, if someone believes our role is 'policeman of the world' we're gonna have to pay for it somehow"

Silence.

Me: "Have you taken *********** to get signed up for selective service yet?" (his approaching draft age son)

Him: "I don't know if we've done that yet"

Silence. I was stunned with the whole thing.

I continued cooking and he went on to talk sports.

Can't pronounce Ahmadinejad's name, can't cite what he's done, can't explain how to pay for it, doesn't have his own boy at the front of the line -but something should be done.

Kind of a sad night for this 'Paultard'. :(

Foreign policy is the last thing our house guest wants to let go of and it's the subject he knows the least about. A UN Israel firster.

[LibertyEagle]

"...The 1953 Iranian coup d'état (known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup) was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States under the name TPAJAX Project. The coup saw the transition of Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi from a constitutional monarch to an authoritarian one who relied heavily on United States support to hold on to power until his own overthrow in February 1979...."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état[/IMG]

Yes, that is true. But, don't fail to mention that Mossadegh had nationalized all the oil wells in his country, that had previously been contracted, located, drilled and paid for by a U.S. oil company.

I'm not saying that what our government did was the right thing, but neither was what Mossadegh did.

[heavenlyboy34]

Our house guest was reading the paper last night while I was making some dinner and he says:

(right outta the blue -no indication this was comin')

Him: "They're saying Obama doesn't have the guts to arrest that Iran guy"

Me: "Who?"

Him: "Amoo -Amooda Amabadoo.."

Me: "Ahmadinejad?"

Him: "Yeah, they're saying Obama doesn't have the guts to arrest him, we should arrest him when he sets foot in New York"

Me: "Arrest him for what?"

Him: "Arrest him for the holocaust"

Me: "Which holocaust?"

Him: "Well he said he was going to wipe Israel off the map, and he's getting those nukes"

Me: "Israel has nukes, can't they take care of themselves? What law did he break?"

Him: "All kinds of laws, UN laws, U.S. laws, the guy is bad news"

Me: "Well, if someone believes our role is 'policeman of the world' we're gonna have to pay for it somehow"

Silence.

Me: "Have you taken *********** to get signed up for selective service yet?" (his approaching draft age son)

Him: "I don't know if we've done that yet"

Silence. I was stunned with the whole thing.

I continued cooking and he went on to talk sports.

Can't pronounce Ahmadinejad's name, can't cite what he's done, can't explain how to pay for it, doesn't have his own boy at the front of the line -but something should be done.

Kind of a sad night for this 'Paultard'. :(

Foreign policy is the last thing our house guest wants to let go of and it's the subject he knows the least about. A UN Israel firster.
By chance, was that guest one of those state-worshiping "Christians"? For example, my mother watches those quacky statist televangelists, and she's come to believe that the teachings in the bible about gold/silver being honest money don't matter because at the end of time people will be throwing their gold in the streets. At the same time she bemoans the Bernank's money-printing. Makes no fucking sense to me.

[juleswin]

Yes, that is true. But, don't fail to mention that Mossadegh had nationalized all the oil wells in his country, that had previously been contracted, located, drilled and paid for by a U.S. oil company.

I'm not saying that what our government did was the right thing, but neither was what Mossadegh did.

And the contracts you speak of were signed while Iran was still a British colony(sort of). Talk about signing a contract under duress. A contract I believe was fulfilled before the countries oil fields were nationalized

[Origanalist]

Our house guest was reading the paper last night while I was making some dinner and he says:

(right outta the blue -no indication this was comin')

Him: "They're saying Obama doesn't have the guts to arrest that Iran guy"

Me: "Who?"

Him: "Amoo -Amooda Amabadoo.."

Me: "Ahmadinejad?"

Him: "Yeah, they're saying Obama doesn't have the guts to arrest him, we should arrest him when he sets foot in New York"

Me: "Arrest him for what?"

Him: "Arrest him for the holocaust"

Me: "Which holocaust?"

Him: "Well he said he was going to wipe Israel off the map, and he's getting those nukes"

Me: "Israel has nukes, can't they take care of themselves? What law did he break?"

Him: "All kinds of laws, UN laws, U.S. laws, the guy is bad news"

Me: "Well, if someone believes our role is 'policeman of the world' we're gonna have to pay for it somehow"

Silence.

Me: "Have you taken *********** to get signed up for selective service yet?" (his approaching draft age son)

Him: "I don't know if we've done that yet"

Silence. I was stunned with the whole thing.

I continued cooking and he went on to talk sports.

Can't pronounce Ahmadinejad's name, can't cite what he's done, can't explain how to pay for it, doesn't have his own boy at the front of the line -but something should be done.

Kind of a sad night for this 'Paultard'. :(

Foreign policy is the last thing our house guest wants to let go of and it's the subject he knows the least about. A UN Israel firster.

Just another night in the greatest nation on Gods green earth!

[Tudo]

Ahmadinejad Greeted by Rabbis in New York
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_XAeqtY7Sk&feature=related

[LibertyEagle]

And the contracts you speak of were signed while Iran was still a British colony(sort of). Talk about signing a contract under duress. A contract I believe was fulfilled before the countries oil fields were nationalized

I'm pretty sure you are wrong about both things. The deals were made with the leaders of the various countries and no, I'm pretty sure that the contracts were not fulfilled.

[pcosmar]

Yes, that is true. But, don't fail to mention that Mossadegh had nationalized all the oil wells in his country, that had previously been contracted, located, drilled and paid for by a U.S. oil company.

I'm not saying that what our government did was the right thing, but neither was what Mossadegh did.

British company,, and attempts at renegotiation were rejected by British Petroleum (the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company).

The oil would have still been sold. The British were just losing CONTROL over it.


Prime Minister of Great Britain, Winston Churchill, who was adamantly trying to keep control of the oil in Iran, looked to the United States for help. In was not until the inauguration of Dwight Eisenhower in January of 1953 that Winston Churchill received the support that he was looking for. It is believed that Eisenhower offered support because he viewed a possible Russian invasion in the weak state of Iran as a Cold War Threat. Newly appointed United State Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, and his brother, Allen Dulles, who was Deputy Director of the CIA worked closely with the CIA field commander, Kermit Roosevelt, to plan the coup against Mossadegh, which after one failed attempt became a success in August of 1953.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-was-operation-ajax.htm

[bunklocoempire]

By chance, was that guest one of those state-worshiping "Christians"? For example, my mother watches those quacky statist televangelists, and she's come to believe that the teachings in the bible about gold/silver being honest money don't matter because at the end of time people will be throwing their gold in the streets. At the same time she bemoans the Bernank's money-printing. Makes no fucking sense to me.

He's a very successful businessman through whom God has blessed a LOT of people, my family included -big time and in many ways -not just coin.

He's got some real problems with the state so he's not a total state-worshiper. Where he drops the ball is always with foreign policy, but, since war is the health of the state... Pretty much every other thing I can get through to him on. The UN Israel thing though... ugh.

[No Free Beer]

The world is not as black and white as a lot of people make it out to be.

Does Mahmoud say some things that are true or that I tend to agree with? Yes. Is he a hypocrite for saying that he wants people to be free while not allowing for fair elections in his own country? Yes. Is he just like every other world leader? Yes.

The best thing for us to do is to just get the hell out of there and mind our own damn business. If he starts trouble in a way that threatens the world, a "go" by one of our presidents (and consent from Congress) will take care of that.

[Peace Piper]

Yes, that is true. But, don't fail to mention that Mossadegh had nationalized all the oil wells in his country, that had previously been contracted, located, drilled and paid for by a U.S. oil company.

I'm not saying that what our government did was the right thing, but neither was what Mossadegh did.

Well the US hasn't ever re-negotiated an agreement or ignored the fine points of contract law, has it (ask a Native). Or lied! (how did believing the lies told about that silly little anti muslim film work out?)

I'd urge you to read the Wiki summary. The details speak for themselves.


Some relevant clips:


>>"... After the war, nationalist leaders in Iran became influential by seeking a reduction in long-term foreign interventions in their country—especially the oil concession which was very profitable for Britain and not very profitable to Iran. The British-controlled AIOC refused to allow its books to be audited to determine whether the Iranian government was being paid what had been promised. British intransigence irked the Iranian population.

"...The U.S. State Department not only rejected Britain's demand that it continue to be the primary beneficiary of Iranian oil reserves but "U.S. international oil interests were among the beneficiaries of the concessionary arrangements that followed nationalization."

"...In 1951, the AIOC's resistance to re-negotiating their petroleum concession—and increasing the royalty paid to Iran—created popular support for nationalising the company. In March, the pro-Western PM Ali Razmara was assassinated; the next month, the parliament legislated the petroleum industry's nationalisation, by creating the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC). This legislation was guided by the Western-educated Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh, then a member of the Iranian parliament and leader of the nationalisation movement; by May, the Shah had appointed Mosaddegh Prime Minister.

Mohammad Mosaddegh attempted to negotiate with the AIOC, but the company rejected his proposed compromise. Mosaddegh's plan, based on the 1948 compromise between the Venezuelan Government of Romulo Gallegos and Creole Petroleum,[41] would divide the profits from oil 50/50 between Iran and Britain. Against the recommendation of the United States, Britain refused this proposal and began planning to undermine and overthrow the Iranian government...

"...The United Kingdom took its anti-nationalisation case against Iran to the International Court of Justice at The Hague; PM Mosaddegh said the world would learn of a "cruel and imperialistic country" stealing from a "needy and naked people". Representing the AIOC, the UK lost its case. In August 1952, Iranian Prime Minister Mosaddegh invited an American oil executive to visit Iran and the Truman administration welcomed the invitation. However, the suggestion upset British Prime Minister Winston Churchill who insisted that the U.S. not undermine his campaign to isolate Mosaddegh: "Britain was supporting the Americans in Korea, he reminded Truman, and had a right to expect Anglo-American unity on Iran....

"...While Mosaddegh dealt with political challenge, he faced another that most Iranians considered far more urgent. The British blockade of Iranian seaports meant that Iran was left without access to markets where it could sell its oil. The embargo had the effect of causing Iran to spiral into bankruptcy. Tens of thousands had lost their jobs at the Abadan refinery, and although most understood and passionately supported the idea of nationalisation, they naturally hoped that Mosaddegh would find a way to put them back to work. The only way he could do that was to sell oil."[50]

Worried about Britain's other interests in Iran, and believing that Iran's nationalism was Soviet-backed, Britain persuaded Secretary of State John Foster Dulles that Iran was falling to the Soviets—effectively exploiting the American Cold War mindset. While President Harry S. Truman was busy fighting a war in Korea, he did not agree to overthrow the government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. However, in 1953, when Dwight D. Eisenhower became president, the UK convinced him to a joint coup d'état.[35]


************

It's a lot more complicated than "we paid for the wells, we deserve to profit", isn't it. Or at least it should be.

Oh, by the way, I'm going to assume that you were around during the 79 hostage crisis, based on your previous posts. How often was the 1953 Coup d'etat mentioned in the mainstream media then?

I heard none. I was young though (lol, very young!) so maybe I missed a few. But in every single media mention I remember, there was no connection drawn. Why was that?

Every one should see this British news clip of the Coup:
Persia and the oilfield- a brief recap of the US/UK 1953 Iranian Coup d'etat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNCE6qFHi18

[juleswin]

Well the US hasn't ever re-negotiated an agreement or ignored the fine points of contract law, has it (ask a Native). Or lied! (how did believing the lies told about that silly little anti muslim film work out?)

I'd urge you to read the Wiki summary. The details speak for themselves.


Some relevant clips:


>>"... After the war, nationalist leaders in Iran became influential by seeking a reduction in long-term foreign interventions in their country—especially the oil concession which was very profitable for Britain and not very profitable to Iran. The British-controlled AIOC refused to allow its books to be audited to determine whether the Iranian government was being paid what had been promised. British intransigence irked the Iranian population.

"...The U.S. State Department not only rejected Britain's demand that it continue to be the primary beneficiary of Iranian oil reserves but "U.S. international oil interests were among the beneficiaries of the concessionary arrangements that followed nationalization."

Every one should see this British news clip of the Coup:
Persia and the oilfield- a brief recap of the US/UK 1953 Iranian Coup d'etat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNCE6qFHi18

Big +rep for that information drop. I knew if the British negotiation with Iran was anything like the negotiations they did with the Nigeria govt, Iran had every right to reject it. The British govt is no fair negotiator and will twist arms and slit throats until they get exactly what they want, especially from their African colonies

[dillo]

edited

[LibertyEagle]

Well the US hasn't ever re-negotiated an agreement or ignored the fine points of contract law, has it (ask a Native). Or lied! (how did believing the lies told about that silly little anti muslim film work out?)

I'd urge you to read the Wiki summary. The details speak for themselves.

I am speaking from the point of knowing very well the person who negotiated a great many of the initial deals with a variety of the governments of countries in the Middle East. I don't remember him talking about Iran, but he did a great many of the others. His people also did all the development work, found the oil, drilled for it and built the pipelines.

[dillo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48ja3iSgsT4

relevant

[juleswin]

I am speaking from the point of knowing very well the person who negotiated a great many of the initial deals with a variety of the governments of countries in the Middle East. I don't remember him talking about Iran, but he did a great many of the others. His people also did all the development work, found the oil, drilled for it and built the pipelines.

It might be time to get your negotiator friend to correct the record and explain to the world why Iran defied a world power and reneged on the very fair contract between them and the British oil companies. At the risk of invasion and debilitating economic sanctions. Don't sit idly by and let his good work be tarnished on the internet

[devil21]

I think he's gay. Just saying.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

[Smart3]

Ahmadinejad is a brilliant man who is greatly misunderstood. He actually likes America and Jews.

[LibertyEagle]

It might be time to get your negotiator friend to correct the record and explain to the world why Iran defied a world power and reneged on the very fair contract between them and the British oil companies. At the risk of invasion and debilitating economic sanctions. Don't sit idly by and let his good work be tarnished on the internet

As I previously said, I don't recall him talking about Iran, so he may not have negotiated the deal with them. But, he did with a great many of the other Middle Eastern countries. I'm not worried about his name being tarnished by you. ROFL. Oh, and by the way, these deals were made a great number of years ago; they were the initial ones made.

As far as Iran goes, we all would have to study the actual agreement to know what the deal actually was. But, you seem to overlook the fact that most, if not all, Middle Eastern countries did not know how to find oil, much less drill for it, build pipelines, or anything else. All this was done by the oil company. So, what is fair? Should all these exploration and development costs be totally ignored? Not from my viewpoint.

As far as explaining to the "world", as you proclaim, I'm not too worried about it. As it is leftists who typically hold the idiotic belief that oil companies are the source of all evil while proceeding to drive their cars and use products that contain petroleum products. It kind of reminds me of Al Gore, in fact. :)

[KingNothing]

Yes, that is true. But, don't fail to mention that Mossadegh had nationalized all the oil wells in his country, that had previously been contracted, located, drilled and paid for by a U.S. oil company.

I'm not saying that what our government did was the right thing, but neither was what Mossadegh did.

Don't go injecting nuance into this debate!

[KingNothing]

The world is not as black and white as a lot of people make it out to be.

Does Mahmoud say some things that are true or that I tend to agree with? Yes. Is he a hypocrite for saying that he wants people to be free while not allowing for fair elections in his own country? Yes. Is he just like every other world leader? Yes.

The best thing for us to do is to just get the hell out of there and mind our own damn business. If he starts trouble in a way that threatens the world, a "go" by one of our presidents (and consent from Congress) will take care of that.

Best post in the thread.

[juleswin]

As I previously said, I don't recall him talking about Iran, so he may not have negotiated the deal with them. But, he did with a great many of the other Middle Eastern countries. I'm not worried about his name being tarnished by you. ROFL. Oh, and by the way, these deals were made a great number of years ago; they were the initial ones made.

Why even mention that you know the negotiator if you are not sure he negotiated the Iranian deal? I guess someone is name dropping for the heck of it


As far as Iran goes, we all would have to study the actual agreement to know what the deal actually was. But, you seem to overlook the fact that most, if not all, Middle Eastern countries did not know how to find oil, much less drill for it, build pipelines, or anything else. All this was done by the oil company. So, what is fair? Should all these exploration and development costs be totally ignored? Not from my viewpoint.

Yea, and many of those countries did not also know how to build skyscrapers, water utilities, power generations plants but it doesn't follow that after those western companies were paid to build said infrastructure, that they get to own forever a piece of the said infrastructural they taught/helped the middle eastern countries how to build. The west were far ahead technologically than the rest of the world, they built far superior transport vessels, weapon, farming equipment etc and that is good for them but that doesn't mean the rest of the world wouldn't have caught up. I am sure if the western oil companies would have told Iran that we gonna help you mine this very valuable material 10-20yr earlier that you will be able to do it yourself with the catch that we pay pittance from profit made from the mining for ever, Iran would told em to fuck off.


As far as explaining to the "world", as you proclaim, I'm not too worried about it. As it is leftists who typically hold the idiotic belief that oil companies are the source of all evil while proceeding to drive their cars and use products that contain petroleum products. It kind of reminds me of Al Gore, in fact. :)

Not just leftist m8, I am originally from Nigeria and I know what shell oil company did to that country, I know about the assassinations, the death squads that they paid for to harass people who did not tow the line, the devastating pollution to local fishing communities. Leftist hate them for the profits they make, I on the other hand hate them for being too controlling and thuggish like.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

I like Ahmadinejad. He speaks the truth and doesn't back down. He should start wearing ties though.

[fisharmor]

I like Ahmadinejad. He speaks the truth and doesn't back down. He should start wearing ties though.

Funny, I only came here to say that any president of a country that doesn't wear a tie is OK with me.
Fuck ties.

[LibertyEagle]

British company,, and attempts at renegotiation were rejected by British Petroleum (the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company).

The oil would have still been sold. The British were just losing CONTROL over it.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-was-operation-ajax.htm

Ok, Pete, but what I am saying is that if they paid to locate it, drill for it, etc., they were still due some part of it, if it was part of the agreement. That stuff isn't free.

[LibertyEagle]

Why even mention that you know the negotiator if you are not sure he negotiated the Iranian deal?
I didn't say I knew the negotiator for Iran. I said I knew the negotiator for a number of these types of deals in the Middle East. Reading comprehension is not your thing.


I guess someone is name dropping for the heck of it
I never dropped a name, Jules.


Yea, and many of those countries did not also know how to build skyscrapers, water utilities, power generations plants but it doesn't follow that after those western companies were paid to build said infrastructure, that they get to own forever a piece of the said infrastructural they taught/helped the middle eastern countries how to build. The west were far ahead technologically than the rest of the world, they built far superior transport vessels, weapon, farming equipment etc and that is good for them but that doesn't mean the rest of the world wouldn't have caught up. I am sure if the western oil companies would have told Iran that we gonna help you mine this very valuable material 10-20yr earlier that you will be able to do it yourself with the catch that we pay pittance from profit made from the mining for ever, Iran would told em to fuck off.
If the country agreed to a contract, yes, they should live up to it. How is that so shocking to you? What exactly is your issue with contracts? Please explain.

You need to think back to when knowledge of oil; how to locate, drill and transport it, was rather new. Think back to when there were no pipelines in these countries. All that cost a great deal of money and it was a huge risk. If they were good at what they did, big risks and big expenditures, brought big rewards. And the rewards were on both sides. Sounds like capitalism to me. :eek:


Not just leftist m8, I am originally from Nigeria and I know what shell oil company did to that country, I know about the assassinations, the death squads that they paid for to harass people who did not tow the line, the devastating pollution to local fishing communities. Leftist hate them for the profits they make, I on the other hand hate them for being too controlling and thuggish like.

If what you say is accurate, I don't blame you.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Funny, I only came here to say that any president of a country that doesn't wear a tie is OK with me.
Fuck ties.

Then you must love Evo Morales.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NII819_tHOo/TagPshNBUyI/AAAAAAAAjXI/j7OVcvOb94Q/s1600/evo-morales.jpg

[pcosmar]

Ok, Pete, but what I am saying is that if they paid to locate it, drill for it, etc., they were still due some part of it. That stuff isn't free.

They did. 40 years worth.
From 1909 to 1953. They were screwing the Iranians and they got tired of it.
BP and Standard Oil were still going to make profits,,, Just not ALL of them. The Iranian people were going to get their cut.
That was not acceptable to the Empire.

[LibertyEagle]

They did. 40 years worth.
From 1909 to 1953. They were screwing the Iranians and they got tired of it.
BP and Standard Oil were still going to make profits,,, Just not ALL of them. The Iranian people were going to get their cut.
That was not acceptable to the Empire.

If the agreement had been filled, I would agree with you.

[juleswin]

If the agreement had been filled, I would agree with you.

If you asked me, I say every contract signed by the colonial master with the colonial subjects should be thrown away, scratched, canceled, voided because it is on the same level as the verbal contract between an armed robber and his/her victim. Btw, this includes all the contracts signed by western oil/construction companies with Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan. Its just not enforceable especially when the people overthrown their puppet leader and install their own.

Ofc I believe contracts should be fulfilled but in a true free market society, no insurance company will dare insurance such a contract, because its only a matter of time before the people you are screwing decide they cant take it anymore.

[pcosmar]

If the agreement had been filled, I would agree with you.
An Agreement?

An act to allow a drawback of the duties of customs on the exportation of tea to any of his Majesty's colonies or plantations in America; to increase the deposit on bohea tea to be sold at the East India Company's sales; and to empower the commissioners of the treasury to grant licenses to the East India Company to export tea duty-free.

Not exactly. But same difference.

[Meatwasp]

My dear husband would say"Fuck them all but six and save them for pall bearers." That is how I think about the Mideast

[Mundane]

More importantly, what do some Jews think about him? Apologies if this has already been posted:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCw-oWp1wf8

[Jumbo Shrimp]

More importantly, what do some Jews think about him? Apologies if this has already been posted:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCw-oWp1wf8

God bless those rabbis!

[heavenlyboy34]

More importantly, what do some Jews think about him? Apologies if this has already been posted:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCw-oWp1wf8
Anyone know when this was recorded? I will share it around teh interwebz. :)

[amy31416]

I think he's a pretty stylish fellow.

[devil21]

That video above has been around a long time. I think it was taken in 2007 or 2008?