| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"Jd" |
| Date: |
30 Jun 2007 08:56:54 PM |
| Object: |
1 reason to invade Iran |
***Iran’s President Threatens Destruction of Israel***
"Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday said the world would witness the
destruction of Israel soon, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported. "God willing, in
near future we will witness destruction of the corrupt occupier regime," Ahmadinejad was quoted as
saying during a speech to foreign guests who attended ceremonies marking the 18th anniversary of the
death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who is known as the father of Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Ahmadinejad has made anti-Israel comments in the past. In October 2005, he caused outrage in the
West when he said in a speech that Israel's "Zionist regime should be wiped off the map."" (The
Associated Press, June 3, 2007)
Jd
.
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 reason to invade Iran |
30 Jun 2007 09:33:54 PM |
|
|
In article <776e835prrbhjslbfvu1tmsc2qtmts8b2t@4ax.com>,
ZionsFire@att.net says...
***Iran?s President Threatens Destruction of Israel***
"Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday said the world would witness the
destruction of Israel
That might actually qualify as some kind of reason if we were the United
States of Israel. You realize that we are not Israel, don't you?
soon, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported. "God willing,
in
near future we will witness destruction of the corrupt occupier regime,"
It sounds like he would like it to happen and is even attempt to prophesy
that it might happen. But that doesn't mean that believes that he could
carry it out. Answer this question. How is Iran going to transport
troops to Israel? By parachute? How is Iran going to deal with the 300
nuclear devices that Israel is believed to have, plus chemical and
biological agents, delivery systems, superior air power, etc?
West when he said in a speech that Israel's "Zionist regime should be wiped off the map."" (The
Associated Press, June 3, 2007)
What he thinks should happen and what he will do are different things.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sean C" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 reason to invade Iran |
01 Jul 2007 12:53:44 AM |
|
|
In article <776e835prrbhjslbfvu1tmsc2qtmts8b2t@4ax.com>, Jd
<ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
***Iran’s President Threatens Destruction of Israel***
"Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday said the world
would witness the
destruction of Israel soon, the official Islamic Republic News Agency
reported. "God willing, in
near future we will witness destruction of the corrupt occupier regime,"
Ahmadinejad was quoted as
saying during a speech to foreign guests who attended ceremonies marking the
18th anniversary of the
death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who is known as the father of Iran's
1979 Islamic Revolution.
Ahmadinejad has made anti-Israel comments in the past. In October 2005, he
caused outrage in the
West when he said in a speech that Israel's "Zionist regime should be wiped
off the map."" (The
Associated Press, June 3, 2007)
All lies from the same people who lied us into Iraq:
http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/2006/07/everything_you_.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/tilley08282006.html
"The most infamous quote, "Israel must be wiped off the map", is the
most glaringly wrong. In his October 2005 speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad never
used the word "map" or the term "wiped off". According to
Farsi-language experts like Juan Cole and even right-wing services like
MEMRI, what he actually said was "this regime that is occupying
Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."
Israel and the US on the other hand, have threatened repeatedly to
attack Iran for no other reason than Iran's pursuing their lawful
rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which allows them to
develop civilian nuclear energy. Indeed, several Republican
presidential hopefuls have threatened to *nuke* Iran and the pro-Israel
psychopaths at Commentary, Frontpage and other neo-con propaganda mills
have insisted upon it.
Even if all the charges being levelled at Iran were true, the idea that
Iran poses a serious threat to Israel is laughable. Aside from the
extreme improbability of a Muslim ruler nuking the Holy land, Iran has
no means of attacking Israel save a handful of conventional missiles
and no means of countering a massive nuclear retaliation if it does
attack. I would be more concerned with some neo-Nazi group buying nukes
off Ukraine or somewhere else suitably corrupt and using them to nuke
Israel than of any Muslim ever doing so.
--Sean C
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 reason to invade Iran |
20 Jul 2007 07:59:35 PM |
|
|
Sean C wrote:
In article <776e835prrbhjslbfvu1tmsc2qtmts8b2t@4ax.com>, Jd
<ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
***Iran’s President Threatens Destruction of Israel***
"Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday said the world
would witness the
destruction of Israel soon, the official Islamic Republic News Agency
reported. "God willing, in
near future we will witness destruction of the corrupt occupier regime,"
Ahmadinejad was quoted as
saying during a speech to foreign guests who attended ceremonies marking the
18th anniversary of the
death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who is known as the father of Iran's
1979 Islamic Revolution.
Ahmadinejad has made anti-Israel comments in the past. In October 2005, he
caused outrage in the
West when he said in a speech that Israel's "Zionist regime should be wiped
off the map."" (The
Associated Press, June 3, 2007)
All lies from the same people who lied us into Iraq:
http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/2006/07/everything_you_.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/tilley08282006.html
"The most infamous quote, "Israel must be wiped off the map", is the
most glaringly wrong. In his October 2005 speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad never
used the word "map" or the term "wiped off". According to
Farsi-language experts like Juan Cole and even right-wing services like
MEMRI, what he actually said was "this regime that is occupying
Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."
Israel and the US on the other hand, have threatened repeatedly to
attack Iran for no other reason than Iran's pursuing their lawful
rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which allows them to
develop civilian nuclear energy. Indeed, several Republican
presidential hopefuls have threatened to *nuke* Iran and the pro-Israel
psychopaths at Commentary, Frontpage and other neo-con propaganda mills
have insisted upon it.
Even if all the charges being levelled at Iran were true, the idea that
Iran poses a serious threat to Israel is laughable. Aside from the
extreme improbability of a Muslim ruler nuking the Holy land, Iran has
no means of attacking Israel save a handful of conventional missiles
and no means of countering a massive nuclear retaliation if it does
attack. I would be more concerned with some neo-Nazi group buying nukes
off Ukraine or somewhere else suitably corrupt and using them to nuke
Israel than of any Muslim ever doing so.
--Sean C
And so they laughed at Hitler for a while too.
Jd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: 1 reason to invade Iran |
21 Jul 2007 07:03:20 AM |
|
|
Here is part of Hitler's speech at Rheinmetall-Borsig Works, Berlin,
on December 10, 1940:
"In this Anglo-French world there exists, as it were, democracy, which
means the rule of the people by the people. Now the people must
possess some means of giving expression to their thoughts or their
wishes. Examining this problem more closely, we see that the people
themselves have originally no convictions of their own. Their
convictions are formed, of course, just as everywhere else. The
decisive question is who enlightens the people, who educates them? In
those countries, it is actually capital that rules; that is, nothing
more than a clique of a few hundred men who possess untold wealth and,
as a consequence of the peculiar structure of their national life, are
more or less independent and free. They say: 'Here we have liberty.'
By this they mean, above all, an uncontrolled economy, and by an
uncontrolled economy, the freedom not only to acquire capital but to
make absolutely free use of it. That means freedom from national
control or control by the people both in the acquisition of capital
and in its employment. This is really what they mean when they speak
of liberty. These capitalists create their own press and then speak of
the 'freedom of the press.'
In reality, every one of the newspapers has a master, and in every
case this master is the capitalist, the owner. This master, not the
editor, is the one who directs the policy of the paper. If the editor
tries to write other than what suits the master, he is ousted the next
day. This press, which is the absolutely submissive and characterless
slave of the owners, molds public opinion. Public opinion thus
mobilized by them is, in its turn, split up into political parties.
The difference between these parties is as small as it formerly was in
Germany. You know them, of course - the old parties. They were always
one and the same. In Britain matters are usually so arranged that
families are divided up, one member being a conservative, another a
liberal, and a third belonging to the labor party. Actually, all three
sit together as members of the family, decide upon their common
attitude and determine it. A further point is that the 'elected
people' actually form a community which operates and controls all
these organizations. For this reason, the opposition in England is
really always the same, for on all essential matters in which the
opposition has to make itself felt, the parties are always in
agreement. They have one and the same conviction and through the
medium of the press mold public opinion along corresponding lines. One
might well believe that in these countries of liberty and riches, the
people must possess an unlimited degree of prosperity. But no! On the
contrary, it is precisely in these countries that the distress of the
masses is greater than anywhere else. Such is the case in 'rich
Britain.'
She controls sixteen million square miles. In India, for example, a
hundred million colonial workers with a wretched standard of living
must labor for her. One might think, perhaps, that at least in England
itself every person must have his share of these riches. By no means!
In that country class distinction is the crassest imaginable. There is
poverty - incredible poverty - on the one side, and equally incredible
wealth on the other. They have not solved a single problem. The
workmen of that country which possesses more than one-sixth of the
globe and of the world's natural resources dwell in misery, and the
masses of the people are poorly clad.. In a country which ought to
have more than enough bread and every sort of fruit, we find millions
of the lower classes who have not even enough to fill their stomachs,
and go about hungry. A nation which could provide work for the whole
world must acknowledge the fact that it cannot even abolish
unemployment at home. For decades this rich Britain has had two and a
half million unemployed; rich America, ten to thirteen millions, year
after year; France, six, seven, and eight hundred thousand. Well, my
fellow-countrymen - what then are we to say about ourselves?
It is self-evident that where this democracy rules, the people as such
are not taken into consideration at all. The only thing that matters
is the existence of a few hundred gigantic capitalists who own all the
factories and their stock and, through them, control the people. The
masses of the people do not interest them in the least. They are
interested in them just as were our bourgeois parties in former times
- only when elections are being held, when they need votes. Otherwise,
the life of the masses is a matter of complete indifference to them.
To this must be added the difference in education. Is it not ludicrous
to hear a member of the British Labor Party - who, of course, as a
member of the Opposition is officially paid by the government - say:
'When the war is over, we will do something in social respects'?
It is the members of Parliament who are the directors of the business
concerns - just as used to be the case with us. But we have abolished
all that. A member of the Reichstag cannot belong to a Board of
Directors, except as a purely honorary member. He is prohibited from
accepting any emolument, financial or otherwise. This is not the case
in other countries.
They reply: 'That is why our form of government is sacred to us.' I
can well believe it, for that form of government certainly pays very
well.. But whether it is sacred to the mass of the people as well is
another matter.
The people as a whole definitely suffer. I do not consider it possible
in the long run for one man to work and toil for a whole year in
return for ridiculous wages, while another jumps into an express train
once a year and pockets enormous sums. Such conditions are a disgrace.
On the other hand, we National Socialists equally oppose the theory
that all men are equals. Today, when a man of genius makes some
astounding invention and enormously benefits his country by his
brains, we pay him his due, for he has really accomplished something
and been of use to his country. However, we hope to make it impossible
for idle drones to inhabit this country.
I could continue to cite examples indefinitely. The fact remains that
two worlds are face to face with one another. Our opponents are quite
right when they say: 'Nothing can reconcile us to the National
Socialist world.' How could a narrow-minded capitalist ever agree to
my principles? It would be easier for the Devil to go to church and
cross himself with holy water than for these people to comprehend the
ideas which are accepted facts to us today. But we have solved our
problems.
To take another instance where we are condemned: They claim to be
fighting for the maintenance of the gold standard as the currency
basis. That I can well believe, for the gold is in their hands. We,
too, once had gold, but it was stolen and extorted from us. When I
came to power, it was not malice which made me abandon the gold
standard. Germany simply had no gold left. Consequently, quitting the
gold standard presented no difficulties, for it is always easy to part
with what one does not have. We had no gold. We had no foreign
exchange. They had all been stolen and extorted from us during the
previous fifteen years. But, my fellow countrymen, I did not regret
it, for we have constructed our economic system on a wholly different
basis. In our eyes, gold is not of value in itself. It is only an
agent by which nations can be suppressed and dominated.
When I took over the government, I had only one hope on which to
build, namely, the efficiency and ability of the German nation and the
German workingman; the intelligence of our inventors, engineers,
technicians, chemists, and so forth. I built on the strength which
animates our economic system. One simple question faced me: Are we to
perish because we have no gold; am I to believe in a phantom which
spells our destruction? I championed the opposite opinion: Even though
we have no gold, we have capacity for work.
The German capacity for work is our gold and our capital, and with
this gold I can compete successfully with any power in the world. We
want to live in houses which have to be built. Hence, the workers must
build them, and the raw materials required must be procured by work.
My whole economic system has been built up on the conception of work.
We have solved our problems while, amazingly enough, the capitalist
countries and their currencies have suffered bankruptcy.
Sterling can find no market today. Throw it at any one and he will
step aside to avoid being hit. But our Reichsmark, which is backed by
no gold, has remained stable. Why? It has no gold cover; it is backed
by you and by your work. You have helped me to keep the mark stable.
German currency, with no gold coverage, is worth more today than gold
itself. It signifies unceasing production. This we owe to the German
farmer, who has worked from daybreak till nightfall. This we owe to
the German worker, who has given us his whole strength. The whole
problem has been solved in one instant, as if by magic.
My dear friends, if I had stated publicly eight or nine years ago: 'In
seven or eight years the problem of how to provide work for the
unemployed will be solved, and the problem then will be where to find
workers,' I should have harmed my cause. Every one would have
declared: 'The man is mad. It is useless to talk to him, much less to
support him. Nobody should vote for him. He is a fantastic creature.'
Today, however, all this has come true. Today, the only question for
us is where to find workers. That, my fellow countrymen, is the
blessing which work brings.
Work alone can create new work; money cannot create work. Work alone
can create values, values with which to reward those who work. The
work of one man makes it possible for another to live and continue to
work. And when we have mobilized the working capacity of our people to
its utmost, each individual worker will receive more and more of the
world's goods.
We have incorporated seven million unemployed into our economic
system; we have transformed another six millions from part-time into
full-time workers; we are even working overtime. And all this is paid
for in cash in Reichsmarks which maintained their value in peacetime.
In wartime we had to ration its purchasing capacity, not in order to
devalue it, but simply to earmark a portion of our industry for war
production to guide us to victory in the struggle for the future of
Germany...
One thing is certain, my fellow-countrymen: All in all, we have today
a state with a different economic and political orientation from that
of the Western democracies.
Well, it must now be made possible for the British worker to travel.
It is remarkable that they should at last hit upon the idea that
traveling should be something not for millionaires alone, but for the
people too. In this country, the problem was solved some time ago. In
the other countries - as is shown by their whole economic structure -
the selfishness of a relatively small stratum rules under the mask of
democracy. This stratum is neither checked nor controlled by anyone.
It is therefore understandable if an Englishman says: 'We do not want
our world to be subject to any sort of collapse.' Quite so. The
English know full well that their Empire is not menaced by us. But
they say quite truthfully: 'If the ideas that are popular in Germany
are not completely eliminated, they might become popular among our own
people, and that is the danger. We do not want this.' It would do no
harm if they did become popular there, but these people are just as
narrow-minded as many once were in Germany. In this respect they
prefer to remain bound to their conservative methods. They do not wish
to depart from them, and do not conceal the fact.
They say, 'The German methods do not suit us at all.'
And what are these methods? You know, my comrades, that I have
destroyed nothing in Germany. I have always proceeded very carefully,
because I believe - as I have already said - that we cannot afford to
wreck anything. I am proud that the Revolution of 1933 was brought to
pass without breaking a single windowpane. Nevertheless, we have
wrought enormous changes.
I wish to put before you a few basic facts: The first is that in the
capitalistic democratic world the most important principle of economy
is that the people exist for trade and industry, and that these in
turn exist for capital. We have reversed this principle by making
capital exist for trade and industry, and trade and industry exist for
the people. In other words, the people come first. Everything else is
but a means to this end. When an economic system is not capable of
feeding and clothing a people, then it is bad, regardless of whether a
few hundred people say: 'As far as I am concerned it is good,
excellent; my dividends are splendid.'
However, the dividends do not interest me at all. Here we have drawn
the line. They may then retort: 'Well, look here, that is just what we
mean. You jeopardize liberty.'
Yes, certainly, we jeopardize the liberty to profiteer at the expense
of the community, and, if necessary, we even abolish it. British
capitalists, to mention only one instance, can pocket dividends of 76,
80, 95, 140, and even 160 per cent from their armament industry.
Naturally they say: 'If the German methods grow apace and should prove
victorious, this sort of thing will stop.'
They are perfectly right. I should never tolerate such a state of
affairs. In my eyes, a 6 per cent dividend is sufficient. Even from
this 6 per cent we deduct one-half and, as for the rest, we must have
definite proof that it is invested in the interest of the country as a
whole. In other words, no individual has the right to dispose
arbitrarily of money which ought to be invested for the good of the
country. If he disposes of it sensibly, well and good; if not, the
National Socialist state will intervene.
To take another instance, besides dividends there are the so-called
directors' fees. You probably have no idea how appallingly active a
board of directors is. Once a year its members have to make a journey.
They have to go to the station, get into a first-class compartment and
travel to some place or other. They arrive at an appointed office at
about 10 or 11 A.M. There they must listen to a report. When the
report has been read, they must listen to a few comments on it. They
may be kept in their seats until 1 P.M. or even 2. Shortly after 2
o'clock they rise from their chairs and set out on their homeward
journey, again, of course, traveling first class. It is hardly
surprising that they claim 3,000, 4,000, or even 5,000 as compensation
for this: Our directors formerly did the same - for what a lot of time
it costs them! Such effort had to be made worth while! Of course, we
have got rid of all this nonsense, which was merely veiled
profiteering and even bribery.
In Germany, the people, without any doubt, decide their existence.
They determine the principles of their government. In fact it has been
possible in this country to incorporate many of the broad masses into
the National Socialist party, that gigantic organization embracing
millions and having millions of officials drawn from the people
themselves. This principle is extended to the highest ranks.
For the first time in German history, we have a state which has
absolutely abolished all social prejudices in regard to political
appointments as well as in private life. I myself am the best proof of
this. Just imagine: I am not even a lawyer, and yet I am your Leader!
It is not only in ordinary life that we have succeeded in appointing
the best among the people for every position. We have
Reichsstatthalters who were formerly agricultural laborers or
locksmiths. Yes, we have even succeeded in breaking down prejudice in
a place where it was most deep-seated -in the fighting forces.
Thousands of officers are being promoted from the ranks today. We have
done away with prejudice. We have generals who were ordinary soldiers
and noncommissioned officers twenty-two and twenty-three years ago. In
this instance, too, we have overcome all social obstacles. Thus, we
are building up our life for the future.
As you know we have countless schools, national political educational
establishments, Adolf Hitler schools, and so on. To these schools we
send gifted children of the broad masses, children of working men,
farmers' sons whose parents could never have afforded a higher
education for their children. We take them in gradually. They are
educated here, sent to the Ordensburgen, to the Party, later to take
their place in the State where they will some day fill the highest
posts....
Opposed to this there stands a completely different world. In the
world the highest ideal is the struggle for wealth, for capital, for
family possessions, for personal egoism; everything else is merely a
means to such ends. Two worlds confront each other today. We know
perfectly well that if we are defeated in this war it would not only
be the end of our National Socialist work of reconstruction, but the
end of the German people as a whole. For without its powers of
coordination, the German people would starve. Today the masses
dependent on us number 120 or 130 millions, of which 85 millions alone
are our own people. We remain ever aware of this fact.
On the other hand, that other world says: 'If we lose, our world-wide
capitalistic system will collapse. For it is we who save hoarded gold.
It is lying in our cellars and will lose its value. If the idea that
work is the decisive factor spreads abroad, what will happen to us? We
shall have bought our gold in vain. Our whole claim to world dominion
can then no longer be maintained. The people will do away with their
dynasties of high finance. They will present their social claims, and
the whole world system will be overthrown.'
I can well understand that they declare: 'Let us prevent this at all
costs; it must be prevented.' They can see exactly how our nation has
been reconstructed. You see it clearly. For instance, there we see a
state ruled by a numerically small upper class. They send their sons
to their own schools, to Eton. We have Adolf Hitler schools or
national political educational establishments. On the one hand, the
sons of plutocrats, financial magnates; on the other, the children of
the people. Etonians and Harrovians exclusively in leading positions
over there; in this country, men of the people in charge of the State.
These are the two worlds. I grant that one of the two must succumb.
Yes, one or the other. But if we were to succumb, the German people
would succumb with us. If the other were to succumb, I am convinced
that the nations will become free for the first time. We are not
fighting individual Englishmen or Frenchmen. We have nothing against
them. For years I proclaimed this as the aim of my foreign policy. We
demanded nothing of them, nothing at all. When they started the war
they could not say: 'We are doing so because the Germans asked this or
that of us.' They said, on the contrary: 'We are declaring war on you
because the German system of Government does not suit us; because we
fear it might spread to our own people.' For that reason they are
carrying on this war. They wanted to blast the German nation back to
the time of Versailles, to the indescribable misery of those days. But
they have made a great mistake.
If in this war everything points to the fact that gold is fighting
against work, capitalism against peoples, and reaction against the
progress of humanity, then work, the peoples, and progress will be
victorious. Even the support of the Jewish race will not avail the
others.
I have seen all this coming for years. What did I ask of the other
world? Nothing but the right for Germans to reunite and the
restoration of all that had been taken from them - nothing which would
have meant a loss to the other nations. How often have I stretched out
my hand to them? Ever since I came into power. I had not the slightest
wish to rearm.
For what do armaments mean? They absorb so much labor. It was I who
regarded work as being of decisive importance, who wished to employ
the working capacity of Germany for other plans. I think the news is
already out that, after all, I have some fairly important plans in my
mind, vast and splendid plans for my people. It is my ambition to make
the German people rich and to make the German homeland beautiful. I
want the standard of living of the individual raised. I want us to
have the most beautiful and the finest civilization. I should like the
theater - in fact, the whole of German civilization - to benefit all
the people and not to exist only for the upper ten thousand, as is the
case in England.
The plans which we had in mind were tremendous, and I needed workers
in order to realize them. Armament only deprives me of workers. I made
proposals to limit armaments. I was ridiculed. The only answer I
received was 'No.' I proposed the limitation of certain types of
armament. That was refused. I proposed that airplanes should be
altogether eliminated from warfare. That also was refused. I suggested
that bombers should be limited. That was refused. They said: 'That is
just how we wish to force our regime upon you.' ...
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/
http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 reason to invade Iran |
26 Jul 2007 07:00:36 PM |
|
|
Topaz wrote:
Here is part of Hitler's speech at Rheinmetall-Borsig Works, Berlin,
on December 10, 1940:
[snip]
Well why don't you go ahead and quote Akmendinnerjhad too?
Jd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: 1 reason to invade Iran |
27 Jul 2007 06:09:57 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:00:36 GMT, Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
Well why don't you go ahead and quote Akmendinnerjhad too?
Message of H.E. Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
President of the Islamic Republic of Iran
To the American People
In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful
O, Almighty God, bestow upon humanity the perfect human being promised
to all by You, and make us among his followers.
Noble Americans,
Were we not faced with the activities of the US administration in this
part of the world and the negative ramifications of those activities
on
the daily lives of our peoples, coupled with the many wars and
calamities caused by the US administration as well as the tragic
consequences of US interference in other countries;
Were the American people not God-fearing, truth-loving, and
justice-seeking, while the US administration actively conceals the
truth and impedes any objective portrayal of current realities;
And if we did not share a common responsibility to promote and protect
freedom and human dignity and integrity;
Then, there would have been little urgency to have a dialogue with
you.
While Divine providence has placed Iran and the United States
geographically far apart, we should be cognizant that human values and
our common human spirit, which proclaim the dignity and exalted worth
of all human beings, have brought our two great nations of Iran and
the
United States closer together.
Both our nations are God-fearing, truth-loving and justice-seeking,
and
both seek dignity, respect and perfection.
Both greatly value and readily embrace the promotion of human ideals
such as compassion, empathy, respect for the rights of human beings,
securing justice and equity, and defending the innocent and the weak
against oppressors and bullies.
We are all inclined towards the good, and towards extending a helping
hand to one another, particularly to those in need.
We all deplore injustice, the trampling of peoples' rights and the
intimidation and humiliation of human beings.
We all detest darkness, deceit, lies and distortion, and seek and
admire salvation, enlightenment, sincerity and honesty.
The pure human essence of the two great nations of Iran and the United
States testify to the veracity of these statements.
Noble Americans,
Our nation has always extended its hand of friendship to all other
nations of the world.
Hundreds of thousands of my Iranian compatriots are living amongst you
in friendship and peace, and are contributing positively to your
society. Our people have been in contact with you over the past many
years and have maintained these contacts despite the unnecessary
restrictions of US authorities.
As mentioned, we have common concerns, face similar challenges, and
are
pained by the sufferings and afflictions in the world.
We, like you, are aggrieved by the ever-worsening pain and misery of
the Palestinian people. Persistent aggressions by the Zionists are
making life more and more difficult for the rightful owners of the
land
of Palestine. In broad day-light, in front of cameras and before the
eyes of the world, they are bombarding innocent defenseless civilians,
bulldozing houses, firing machine guns at students in the streets and
alleys, and subjecting their families to endless grief.
No day goes by without a new crime.
Palestinian mothers, just like Iranian and American mothers, love
their
children, and are painfully bereaved by the imprisonment, wounding and
murder of their children. What mother wouldn't?
For 60 years, the Zionist regime has driven millions of the
inhabitants
of Palestine out of their homes. Many of these refugees have died in
the Diaspora and in refugee camps. Their children have spent their
youth in these camps and are aging while still in the hope of
returning
to homeland.
You know well that the US administration has persistently provided
blind and blanket support to the Zionist regime, has emboldened it to
continue its crimes, and has prevented the UN Security Council from
condemning it.
Who can deny such broken promises and grave injustices towards
humanity
by the US administration?
Governments are there to serve their own people. No people wants to
side with or support any oppressors. But regrettably, the US
administration disregards even its own public opinion and remains in
the forefront of supporting the trampling of the rights of the
Palestinian people.
Let's take a look at Iraq. Since the commencement of the US military
presence in Iraq, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed,
maimed or displaced. Terrorism in Iraq has grown exponentially. With
the presence of the US military in Iraq, nothing has been done to
rebuild the ruins, to restore the infrastructure or to alleviate
poverty. The US Government used the pretext of the existence of
weapons
of mass destruction in Iraq, but later it became clear that that was
just a lie and a deception.
Although Saddam was overthrown and people are happy about his
departure, the pain and suffering of the Iraqi people has persisted
and
has even been aggravated.
In Iraq, about one hundred and fifty thousand American soldiers,
separated from their families and loved ones, are operating under the
command of the current US administration. A substantial number of
them
have been killed or wounded and their presence in Iraq has tarnished
the image of the American people and government.
Their mothers and relatives have, on numerous occasions, displayed
their discontent with the presence of their sons and daughters in a
land thousands of miles away from US shores. American soldiers often
wonder why they have been sent to Iraq.
I consider it extremely unlikely that you, the American people,
consent
to the billions of dollars of annual expenditure from your treasury
for
this military misadventure.
Noble Americans,
You have heard that the US administration is kidnapping its presumed
opponents from across the globe and arbitrarily holding them without
trial or any international supervision in horrendous prisons that it
has established in various parts of the world. God knows who these
detainees actually are, and what terrible fate awaits them.
You have certainly heard the sad stories of the Guantanamo and
Abu-Ghraib prisons. The US administration attempts to justify them
through its proclaimed "war on terror." But every one knows that such
behavior, in fact, offends global public opinion, exacerbates
resentment and thereby spreads terrorism, and tarnishes the US image
and its credibility among nations.
The US administration's illegal and immoral behavior is not even
confined to outside its borders. You are witnessing daily that under
the pretext of "the war on terror," civil liberties in the United
States are being increasingly curtailed. Even the privacy of
individuals is fast losing its meaning. Judicial due process and
fundamental rights are trampled upon. Private phones are tapped,
suspects are arbitrarily arrested, sometimes beaten in the streets, or
even shot to death.
I have no doubt that the American people do not approve of this
behavior and indeed deplore it.
The US administration does not accept accountability before any
organization, institution or council. The US administration has
undermined the credibility of international organizations,
particularly
the United Nations and its Security Council. But, I do not intend to
address all the challenges and calamities in this message.
The legitimacy, power and influence of a government do not emanate
from
its arsenals of tanks, fighter aircrafts, missiles or nuclear weapons.
Legitimacy and influence reside in sound logic, quest for justice and
compassion and empathy for all humanity. The global position of the
United States is in all probability weakened because the
administration
has continued to resort to force, to conceal the truth, and to mislead
the American people about its policies and practices.
Undoubtedly, the American people are not satisfied with this behavior
and they showed their discontent in the recent elections. I hope that
in the wake of the mid-term elections, the administration of President
Bush will have heard and will heed the message of the American people.
My questions are the following:
Is there not a better approach to governance?
Is it not possible to put wealth and power in the service of peace,
stability, prosperity and the happiness of all peoples through a
commitment to justice and respect for the rights of all nations,
instead of aggression and war?
We all condemn terrorism, because its victims are the innocent.
But, can terrorism be contained and eradicated through war,
destruction
and the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocents?
If that were possible, then why has the problem not been resolved?
The sad experience of invading Iraq is before us all.
What has blind support for the Zionists by the US administration
brought for the American people? It is regrettable that for the US
administration, the interests of these occupiers supersedes the
interests of the American people and of the other nations of the
world.
What have the Zionists done for the American people that the US
administration considers itself obliged to blindly support these
infamous aggressors? Is it not because they have imposed themselves on
a substantial portion of the banking, financial, cultural and media
sectors?
I recommend that in a demonstration of respect for the American people
and for humanity, the right of Palestinians to live in their own
homeland should be recognized so that millions of Palestinian refugees
can return to their homes and the future of all of Palestine and its
form of government be determined in a referendum. This will benefit
everyone.
Now that Iraq has a Constitution and an independent Assembly and
Government, would it not be more beneficial to bring the US officers
and soldiers home, and to spend the astronomical US military
expenditures in Iraq for the welfare and prosperity of the American
people? As you know very well, many victims of Katrina continue to
suffer, and countless Americans continue to live in poverty and
homelessness.
I'd also like to say a word to the winners of the recent elections in
the US:
The United States has had many administrations; some who have left a
positive legacy, and others that are neither remembered fondly by the
American people nor by other nations.
Now that you control an important branch of the US Government, you
will
also be held to account by the people and by history.
If the US Government meets the current domestic and external
challenges
with an approach based on truth and Justice, it can remedy some of the
past afflictions and alleviate some of the global resentment and
hatred
of America. But if the approach remains the same, it would not be
unexpected that the American people would similarly reject the new
electoral winners, although the recent elections, rather than
reflecting a victory, in reality point to the failure of the current
administration's policies. These issues had been extensively dealt
with
in my letter to President Bush earlier this year.
To sum up:
It is possible to govern based on an approach that is distinctly
different from one of coercion, force and injustice.
It is possible to sincerely serve and promote common human values, and
honesty and compassion.
It is possible to provide welfare and prosperity without tension,
threats, imposition or war.
It is possible to lead the world towards the aspired perfection by
adhering to unity, monotheism, morality and spirituality and drawing
upon the teachings of the Divine Prophets.
Then, the American people, who are God-fearing and followers of Divine
religions, will overcome every difficulty.
What I stated represents some of my anxieties and concerns.
I am confident that you, the American people, will play an
instrumental
role in the establishment of justice and spirituality throughout the
world. The promises of the Almighty and His prophets will certainly
be
realized, Justice and Truth will prevail and all nations will live a
true life in a climate replete with love, compassion and fraternity.
The US governing establishment, the authorities and the powerful
should
not choose irreversible paths. As all prophets have taught us,
injustice and transgression will eventually bring about decline and
demise. Today, the path of return to faith and spirituality is open
and
unimpeded.
We should all heed the Divine Word of the Holy Qur'an:
"But those who repent, have faith and do good may receive Salvation.
Your Lord, alone, creates and chooses as He will, and others have no
part in His choice; Glorified is God and Exalted above any partners
they ascribe to Him." (28:67-68)
I pray to the Almighty to bless the Iranian and American nations and
indeed all nations of the world with dignity and success.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
President of the Islamic Republic of Iran
29 November 2006
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15952309/
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/
http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: 1 reason to invade Iran |
28 Jul 2007 12:53:14 PM |
|
|
To distract the American public from the fact that the invasions of Iraq and
Afghanistan are TOTALLY corrupted cespools sucking money and lives - and
were based on morally empty republicans lies?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 reason to invade Iran |
01 Jul 2007 01:42:34 AM |
|
|
Sean C wrote:
In article <776e835prrbhjslbfvu1tmsc2qtmts8b2t@4ax.com>, Jd
<ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
***Iran’s President Threatens Destruction of Israel***
"Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday said the world
would witness the
destruction of Israel soon, the official Islamic Republic News Agency
reported. "God willing, in
near future we will witness destruction of the corrupt occupier regime,"
Ahmadinejad was quoted as
saying during a speech to foreign guests who attended ceremonies marking the
18th anniversary of the
death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who is known as the father of Iran's
1979 Islamic Revolution.
Ahmadinejad has made anti-Israel comments in the past. In October 2005, he
caused outrage in the
West when he said in a speech that Israel's "Zionist regime should be wiped
off the map."" (The
Associated Press, June 3, 2007)
All lies from the same people who lied us into Iraq:
http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/2006/07/everything_you_.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/tilley08282006.html
"The most infamous quote, "Israel must be wiped off the map", is the
most glaringly wrong. In his October 2005 speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad never
used the word "map" or the term "wiped off". According to
Farsi-language experts like Juan Cole and even right-wing services like
MEMRI, what he actually said was "this regime that is occupying
Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."
No difference, especially in the age of Relativity theory. In any case
it's like saying they weren't going to shoot the government, but poison
it instead. Same difference.
Israel and the US on the other hand, have threatened repeatedly to
attack Iran for no other reason than Iran's pursuing their lawful
rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which allows them to
develop civilian nuclear energy.
If that's what they were doing, it would not be a problem. But they have
been acquiring fissile materials and obtaining the technology to create
nuclear weapons. The entire world understands this - even Russia no
longer helps the Iranians in their efforts, and is part of the
consortium working on encouraging Iran not to continue its nuclear
weapons program. The Iranians have been offered all kinds of support for
developing peaceful nuclear power if they stop their atomic weapons
development. Why do you think they have refused all this largess?
Indeed, several Republican
presidential hopefuls have threatened to *nuke* Iran and the pro-Israel
psychopaths at Commentary, Frontpage and other neo-con propaganda mills
have insisted upon it.
So are the presidential hopefuls psychopaths?
Even if all the charges being levelled at Iran were true, the idea that
Iran poses a serious threat to Israel is laughable.
If their missiles have the range they are a serious threat. Even Iraq
proved a threat during the first Iraq war.
Aside from the
extreme improbability of a Muslim ruler nuking the Holy land,
Lets see, how many times have they attacked since 1948? How many
offensives have they mustered?
Iran has
no means of attacking Israel save a handful of conventional missiles
and no means of countering a massive nuclear retaliation if it does
attack. I would be more concerned with some neo-Nazi group buying nukes
off Ukraine or somewhere else suitably corrupt and using them to nuke
Israel than of any Muslim ever doing so.
I'm concerned with those too, but one has to consider all potential threats.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean C" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 reason to invade Iran |
01 Jul 2007 02:58:13 PM |
|
|
In article <u1Ihi.813$eY.647@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>, cactus
<bm1@nonespam.com> wrote:
"The most infamous quote, "Israel must be wiped off the map", is the
most glaringly wrong. In his October 2005 speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad never
used the word "map" or the term "wiped off". According to
Farsi-language experts like Juan Cole and even right-wing services like
MEMRI, what he actually said was "this regime that is occupying
Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."
No difference, especially in the age of Relativity theory. In any case
it's like saying they weren't going to shoot the government, but poison
it instead. Same difference.
So can we safely assume that threatening to nuke Iran to implement
"regime change" is really not about a change of government, but an
attempt to exterminate the Iranian people?
No rational person can regard Ahmadinejad's statement as a threat, but
as a hope for the future. It is no more a threat than "next year in
Zion." At no point does Ahmadinejad threaten Israel, but taken in
context, he expresses the hope the Zionist regime will go the way of
the Soviet Union, Saddam or the Shah.
In either case it's not America's problem, and the safest thing we can
do is distance ourselves form both sides, and spend our money where
it's needed at home.
Israel and the US on the other hand, have threatened repeatedly to
attack Iran for no other reason than Iran's pursuing their lawful
rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which allows them to
develop civilian nuclear energy.
If that's what they were doing, it would not be a problem. But they have
been acquiring fissile materials and obtaining the technology to create
nuclear weapons. The entire world understands this - even Russia no
longer helps the Iranians in their efforts, and is part of the
consortium working on encouraging Iran not to continue its nuclear
weapons program. The Iranians have been offered all kinds of support for
developing peaceful nuclear power if they stop their atomic weapons
development. Why do you think they have refused all this largess?
You can hardly accuse the Russians of helping to develop Iran's nuclear
power and the Iranians of refusing the largess at the same time, but
consistency has never been a neo-con trait. Both the CIA and the IAEA
have found no evidence of a "secret" nuclear weapons program; this is a
lie fostered by the same group of fanatics and murderers who lied us
into the Iraq war. Nothing from this White House or any neco-con has
any credibility anymore, except among the terminally gullible.
http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp11292006.html
Indeed, several Republican
presidential hopefuls have threatened to *nuke* Iran and the pro-Israel
psychopaths at Commentary, Frontpage and other neo-con propaganda mills
have insisted upon it.
So are the presidential hopefuls psychopaths?
Yes, many of them very clearly are.
Even if all the charges being levelled at Iran were true, the idea that
Iran poses a serious threat to Israel is laughable.
If their missiles have the range they are a serious threat. Even Iraq
proved a threat during the first Iraq war.
A minor threat at best, and certainly not one justifying a nuclear
response. Israel has the ability to retaliate massively against any
Iranian attack, including the use of nuclear weapons. Iran has no such
capability. During the Gulf War, it would have been in Saddam's
interest to have Israel counterattack so Israel had to refrain from
doing so, but it could have easily turned Iraq into a sheet of glass
had it so desired. There is no conventional army in the Mideast that
poses a serious threat to Israel in any form but in a defensive,
guerrilla war, which is no problem so long as Israel never invades
them.
Aside from the
extreme improbability of a Muslim ruler nuking the Holy land,
Lets see, how many times have they attacked since 1948? How many
offensives have they mustered?
They attacked but once, in 1973, when they still had the potential to
win a conventional war. Since then, Israel's military power has so
eclipsed that of the Arabs states that even combined, they would stand
little chance of seriously damaging Israel let alone winning. Their
only hope against Israel would be a nuclear attack, and no Muslim ruler
could dare to nuke the Holy Land. As it is, the majority of Arabs
states are well managed, pro-American dictatorships that pose little
threat to the status quo.
Iran has
no means of attacking Israel save a handful of conventional missiles
and no means of countering a massive nuclear retaliation if it does
attack. I would be more concerned with some neo-Nazi group buying nukes
off Ukraine or somewhere else suitably corrupt and using them to nuke
Israel than of any Muslim ever doing so.
I'm concerned with those too, but one has to consider all potential threats.
One has to consider all potential threats, one doesn't need to nuke all
potential threats.
--Sean C
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 reason to invade Iran |
01 Jul 2007 01:30:47 AM |
|
|
Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
***Iran’s President Threatens Destruction of Israel***
"Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday said the world would witness the
destruction of Israel soon, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported. "God willing, in
near future we will witness destruction of the corrupt occupier regime," Ahmadinejad was quoted as
saying during a speech to foreign guests who attended ceremonies marking the 18th anniversary of the
death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who is known as the father of Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Ahmadinejad has made anti-Israel comments in the past. In October 2005, he caused outrage in the
West when he said in a speech that Israel's "Zionist regime should be wiped off the map."" (The
Associated Press, June 3, 2007)
In the last 50 years, we have threatened the destruction of the Soviet
Union, China, North Vietnam, North Korea, Libya, Iran, Iraq, and
Afghanistan, and probably at least as many others.
Do those threats mean that they entitled to invade us?
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cockamamie Khomeini" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 reason to invade Iran |
01 Jul 2007 04:29:35 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
***Iran’s President Threatens Destruction of Israel***
"Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday said the world would witness the
destruction of Israel soon, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported. "God willing, in
near future we will witness destruction of the corrupt occupier regime," Ahmadinejad was quoted as
saying during a speech to foreign guests who attended ceremonies marking the 18th anniversary of the
death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who is known as the father of Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Ahmadinejad has made anti-Israel comments in the past. In October 2005, he caused outrage in the
West when he said in a speech that Israel's "Zionist regime should be wiped off the map."" (The
Associated Press, June 3, 2007)
In the last 50 years, we have threatened the destruction of the Soviet
Union, China, North Vietnam, North Korea, Libya, Iran, Iraq, and
Afghanistan, and probably at least as many others.
Do those threats mean that they entitled to invade us?
lojbab
Yes, they are entitled. Just waiting for the means.
--
Cockamamie Khomeini
Leader of the known (Islamic) world.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Corinthian Leather" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 reason to invade Iran |
01 Jul 2007 03:48:18 PM |
|
|
Jd wrote:
***Iran’s President Threatens Destruction of Israel***
"Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday said the world would witness the
destruction of Israel soon, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported. "God willing, in
near future we will witness destruction of the corrupt occupier regime," Ahmadinejad was quoted as
saying during a speech to foreign guests who attended ceremonies marking the 18th anniversary of the
death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who is known as the father of Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Ahmadinejad has made anti-Israel comments in the past. In October 2005, he caused outrage in the
West when he said in a speech that Israel's "Zionist regime should be wiped off the map."" (The
Associated Press, June 3, 2007)
The destruction of the ruling regime is not the same as the destruction
of the country. If a peaceable administration ran Israel, one that
respected the inherent rights of the original Arab residents, then there
would be less talk (continuing mainly among the radicals) of destroying
the nation of Israel.
Sometimes, I wonder just how blind you Christers are!
RCL
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cockamamie Khomeini" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 reason to invade Iran |
01 Jul 2007 04:24:46 PM |
|
|
Jd wrote:
***Iran’s President Threatens Destruction of Israel***
"Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday said the world would witness the
destruction of Israel soon, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported. "God willing, in
near future we will witness destruction of the corrupt occupier regime," Ahmadinejad was quoted as
saying during a speech to foreign guests who attended ceremonies marking the 18th anniversary of the
death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who is known as the father of Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Ahmadinejad has made anti-Israel comments in the past. In October 2005, he caused outrage in the
West when he said in a speech that Israel's "Zionist regime should be wiped off the map."" (The
Associated Press, June 3, 2007)
Jd
I have no problem with the destruction of Israel.
--
Cockamamie Khomeini
Leader of the known (Islamic) world.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 reason to invade Iran |
20 Jul 2007 07:59:36 PM |
|
|
Cockamamie Khomeini wrote:
Jd wrote:
***Iran’s President Threatens Destruction of Israel***
"Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday said the world would witness the
destruction of Israel soon, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported. "God willing, in
near future we will witness destruction of the corrupt occupier regime," Ahmadinejad was quoted as
saying during a speech to foreign guests who attended ceremonies marking the 18th anniversary of the
death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who is known as the father of Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Ahmadinejad has made anti-Israel comments in the past. In October 2005, he caused outrage in the
West when he said in a speech that Israel's "Zionist regime should be wiped off the map."" (The
Associated Press, June 3, 2007)
Jd
I have no problem with the destruction of Israel.
Then you have a real, real, really big problem.
Zec 12:9 "And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations
that come against Jerusalem." - God
Let the despisers be smitten....
Zec 12:3 And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that
burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered
together against it.
Zec 12:4 In that day, saith the Lord, I will smite every horse with astonishment, and his
rider with madness: and I will open mine eyes upon the house of Judah, and will smite every horse of
the people with blindness.
.... though this is nothing new. You see the madenned, deluded ones here daily.
Jd
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Santolina chamaecyparissus" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Reasons to Invade the United States and Israel |
30 Jun 2007 10:30:40 PM |
|
|
On Jun 30, 6:56 pm, Jd <ZionsF...@att.net> wrote:
***Iran's President Threatens Destruction of Israel***
"Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday said the world would witness the
destruction of Israel soon, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported. "God willing, in
near future we will witness destruction of the corrupt occupier regime," Ahmadinejad was quoted as
saying during a speech to foreign guests who attended ceremonies marking the 18th anniversary of the
death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who is known as the father of Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Ahmadinejad has made anti-Israel comments in the past. In October 2005, he caused outrage in the
West when he said in a speech that Israel's "Zionist regime should be wiped off the map."" (The
Associated Press, June 3, 2007)
"I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action
against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq." -
Sen. Joe Lieberman, United States.
"At 8am we'll bomb all the [Palestinian] commercial centres... at noon
we'll bomb their gas stations... at two we'll bomb their banks." -
Avigdor Lieberman, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Strategic
Affairs, Israel.
Yikes. Since there are hysterical, dangerous racists in high
positions of government in all the nations of the middle east, and in
the United States as well, it looks like we'll have to invade them
all. And here I was hoping for a nice, quiet 4th of July.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 reason to invade Iran |
01 Jul 2007 09:52:55 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 01:56:54 +0000, Jd wrote:
Subject: 1 reason to invade Iran
The oil companies will make a *killing.
Fortunately, I have Exxon stock...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys
on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING
like Shakespeare!" - Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 reason to invade Iran |
20 Jul 2007 07:59:35 PM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 01:56:54 +0000, Jd wrote:
Subject: 1 reason to invade Iran
The oil companies will make a *killing.
Fortunately, I have Exxon stock...
Good. So when the anti-christ makes the great peace deal you'll be set. But by then your $$ will be
useless unless you sign up under the one world government. And if you do that you'll be doomed to
hell.
The good news is that "the just shall live by faith".
Jd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Father Haskell" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 reason to invade Iran |
20 Jul 2007 09:37:45 PM |
|
|
On Jul 20, 8:59 pm, Jd <ZionsF...@att.net> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 01:56:54 +0000, Jd wrote:
Subject: 1 reason to invade Iran
The oil companies will make a *killing.
Fortunately, I have Exxon stock...
Good. So when the anti-christ makes the great peace deal you'll be set.
Will I get free dental coverage?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 reason to invade Iran |
26 Jul 2007 07:00:33 PM |
|
|
Father Haskell wrote:
On Jul 20, 8:59 pm, Jd <ZionsF...@att.net> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 01:56:54 +0000, Jd wrote:
Subject: 1 reason to invade Iran
The oil companies will make a *killing.
Fortunately, I have Exxon stock...
Good. So when the anti-christ makes the great peace deal you'll be set.
Will I get free dental coverage?
I dunno. But with an attitude like that you'll need it when someone knocks your teeth out.
Are you gay?
Jd
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 reason to invade Iran |
21 Jul 2007 08:09:04 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 00:59:35 +0000, Jd wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 01:56:54 +0000, Jd wrote:
Subject: 1 reason to invade Iran
The oil companies will make a *killing.
Fortunately, I have Exxon stock...
Good. So when the anti-christ makes the great peace deal you'll be set.
But by then your $$ will be useless unless you sign up under the one
world government. And if you do that you'll be doomed to hell.
Yeah, I worry about that as much as I worry Santa Claus isn't going to
bring me presents.
The good news is that "the just shall live by faith".
Sure they do. That's why Christians don't need jobs right?
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism,
because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
- Mussolini
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 reason to invade Iran |
30 Jun 2007 11:51:06 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 01:56:54 GMT, Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
***Iran’s President Threatens Destruction of Israel***
So let Israel invade, then.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 reason to invade Iran |
01 Jul 2007 07:54:38 AM |
|
|
WHY JUDEO-CHRISTIANS SUPPORT WAR
C. E. Carlson
The French author, Alexis de Tocqueville, wrote "Democracy in America"
when he traveled here in the first third of the 19th Century. In
ringing tones he sang the praises of America's invulnerable strength
and spirit. He attributed its greatness to its citizens' sense of
morality... even with the abundant church attendances he observed in
America. De Tocqueville wrote in French and is credited with this
familiar quote: "AMERICA IS GREAT BECAUSE SHE IS GOOD, and if America
ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great."
De Tocqueville could see the power of America, but he could not have
known in 1830 that she was soon to be under an attack aimed at its
churches and the very sense of morality that he extolled.
First, there was a War Between the States, which scarred the powerful
young nation in its strapping youth. A worse attack on America was to
commence near the turn of the 20th century. This was the onset of an
attack on American Christianity that continues unabated against the
traditional, Christ-following church. This attack, which author
Gordon Ginn calls "The final Apostasy", began with a small very
wealthy and determined European political movement. It had a dream,
and the American churches stood in its way.
The World Zionist movement, as its Jewish founders called themselves,
had plans to acquire a homeland for all Jews worldwide, even though
most were far from homeless, and many did not want another home. Not
any land would do. World Zionists wanted a specific property that
American Christians called "the Holy Land." But if these Zionists
read "Democracy in America" or any of the journals of any of America's
churches, which no doubt they did, they could not help but know that
Jerusalem was not theirs to have. As self proclaimed Jews, they were,
according to the Christian New Testament, the persecutors of Christ
and most of his early followers, and the engineers of his crucifixion.
America's traditional churches in the 19th Century would never stand
for a Jewish occupation of Jesus' homeland.
World Zionist leaders initiated a program to change America and its
religious orientation. One of the tools used to accomplish this goal
was an obscure and malleable Civil War veteran named Cyrus I.
Schofield. A much larger tool was a venerable, world respected
European book publisher The Oxford University Press.
The scheme was to alter the Christian view of Zionism by creating and
promoting a pro-Zionist subculture within Christianity. Scofield's
role was to re-write the King James Version of the Bible by inserting
Zionist-friendly notes in the margins, between verses and chapters,
and on the bottoms of the pages. The Oxford University Press used
Scofield, a pastor by then, as the Editor, probably because it needed
such as man for a front. The revised bible was called the Scofield
Reference Bible, and with limitless advertising and promotion, it
became a best-selling "bible" in America and has remained so for 90
years.
The Scofield Reference Bible was not to be just another translation,
subverting minor passages a little at a time. No, Scofield produced a
revolutionary book that radically changed the context of the King
James Version. It was designed to create a subculture around a new
worship icon, the modern State of Israel, a state that did not yet
exist, but which was already on the drawing boards of the committed,
well-funded authors of World Zionism.
Scofield's support came from a movement that took root around the turn
of the century, supposedly motivated by disillusionment over what it
considered the stagnation of the mainline American churches. Some of
these "reformers" were later to serve on Scofield's Editorial
Committee.
Scofield imitated a chain of past heretics and rapturists, most of
whose credibility fizzled over their faulty end times prophesies. His
mentor was one John Nelson Darby from Scotland, who was associated
with the Plymouth Brethren and who made no less than six evangelical
trips to the US selling what is today called "Darbyism". It is from
Darby that Scofield is thought to have learned his Christian Zionist
theology, which he later planted in the footnotes of the Scofield
Reference Bible. It is possible that Scofield's interest in Darbyism
was shared by Oxford University Press, for Darby was known to Oxford
University.
The Oxford University Press owned "The Scofield Reference Bible" from
the beginning, as indicated by its copyright, and Scofield stated he
received handsome royalties from Oxford. Oxford's advertisers and
promoters succeeded in making Scofield's bible, with its Christian
Zionist footnotes, a standard for interpreting scripture in
Judeo-Christian churches, seminaries, and Bible study groups. It has
been published in at least four editions since its introduction in
1908 and remains one of the largest selling Bibles ever.
The Scofield Reference Bible and its several clones is all but
worshiped in the ranks of celebrity Christians, beginning with the
first media icon, evangelist Billy Graham. Of particular importance
to the Zionist penetration of American Christian churches has been the
fast growth of national bible study organizations, such as Bible Study
Fellowship and Precept Ministries. These draw millions of students
from not only evangelical fundamentalist churches, but also from
Catholic and mainline Protestant churches and non-church contacts.
These invariably teach forms of "dispensationalism," which draw their
theory, to various degrees, from the notes in the Oxford Bible.
Among more traditional churches that encourage, and in some cases
recommend, the use of the Scofield Reference Bible is the huge
Southern Baptist Convention of America, whose capture is World
Zionism's crowning achievement.
Scofield, whose work is largely believed to be the product of Darby
and others, wisely chose not to change the text of the King James
Edition. Instead, he added hundreds of easy to read footnotes at the
bottom of about half of the pages, and as the Old English grammar of
the KJE becomes increasingly difficult for progressive generations of
readers, students become increasingly dependent on the modern language
footnotes...
Scofield's borrowed ideas were later popularized under
the labels and definitions that have evolved into common usage
today pre-millennialism," "dispensationalism," "Judeo-Christianity,"
and most recently the highly political movement openly called
"Christian Zionism."
Thanks to the work of a few dedicated researchers, much of the
questionable personal history of Cyrus I. Scofield is available. It
reveals he was not a Bible scholar as one might expect, but a
political animal with the charm and talent for self promotion of a
Bill Clinton. Scofield's background reveals a criminal history, a
deserted wife, a wrecked family, and a penchant for self serving lies.
He was exactly the sort of man the World Zionists might hire to bend
Christian thought, a controllable man and one capable of carrying the
secret to his grave. (See The Incredible Scofield and His Book by
Joseph M. Canfield).
Other researchers have examined Scofield's eschatology and exposed his
original work as apostate and heretic to traditional Christian views.
Among these is a massive work by Stephen Sizer entitled Christian
Zionism, Its History, Theology and Politics.
(http://virginiawater.org.uk/christchurch)
We Hold These Truths is grateful to these dedicated researchers. Our
own examination of the Oxford Bible has gone in another direction,
focusing not on what Scofield wrote, but on some of the many additions
and deletions The Oxford University Press has continued to make to
Scofield Reference Bible since his death in 1921. These alterations
have further radicalized the Scofield Bible into a manual for the
Christian worship of the State of Israel beyond what Schofield would
have dreamed of. This un-Christian anti-Arab theology has permitted
the theft of Palestine and 54 years of death and destruction against
the Palestinians, with hardly a complaint from the Judeo-Christian
mass media evangelists or most other American church leaders. We
thank God for the exceptions.
It is no exaggeration to say that the 1967 Oxford 4th Edition
deifies--makes a God of--the State of Israel, a state that did not
even exist when Scofield wrote the original footnotes in 1908. This
writer believes that, had it not been for misguided anti-Arab race
hatred promoted by Christian Zionist leaders in America, neither the
Gulf War nor the Israeli war against the Palestinians would have
occurred, and a million or more people who have perished would be
alive today.
What proof does WHTT have to incriminate World Zionism in a scheme to
control Christianity? For proof we offer the words themselves that
were planted in the 1967 Edition, 20 years after the State of Israel
was created in 1947, and 46 years after Scofield's death. The words
tell us that those who control the Oxford Press recreated a bible to
misguide Christians and sell flaming Zionism in the churches of
America.
There is little reason to believe that Scofield knew or cared much
about the Zionist movement, but at some point, he became involved in a
close and secret relationship with Samuel Untermeyer, a New York
lawyer whose firm still exists today and one of the wealthiest and
most powerful World Zionists in America. Untermeyer controlled the
unbreakable thread that connected him with Scofield. They shared a
password and a common watering hole, and it appears that Untermeyer
may have been the one who provided the money that Scofield himself
lacked. Scofield's success as an international bible editor without
portfolio and his lavish living in Europe could only have been
accomplished with financial aid and international influence.
This connection might have remained hidden, were it not for the work
of Joseph M. Canfield, the author and researcher who discovered clues
to the thread in Scofield family papers. But even had the threads
connecting Scofield to Untermeyer and Zionism never been exposed, it
would still be obvious that that connection was there. It is
significant that Oxford, not Scofield, owned the book, and that after
Scofield's death, Oxford accelerated changes to it. Since the death
of its original author and namesake, The Scofield Reference Bible has
gone through several editions. Massive pro-Zionist notes were added
to the 1967 edition, and some of Scofield's most significant notes
from the original editions were removed where they apparently failed
to further Zionist aims fast enough. Yet this edition retains the
title, "The New Scofield Reference Bible, Holy Bible, Editor C.I.
Scofield." It's anti-Arab, Christian subculture theology has made an
enormous contribution to war, turning Christians into participants in
genocide against Arabs in the latter half of the 20th century.
The most convincing evidence of the unseen Zionist hand that wrote the
Scofield notes to the venerable King James Bible is the content of the
notes themselves, for only Zionists could have written them. These
notes are the subject of this paper.
Oxford edited the former 1945 Edition of SRB in 1967, at the time of
the Six Day War when Israel occupied Palestine. The new footnotes to
the King James Bible presumptuously granted the rights to the
Palestinians' land to the State of Israel and specifically denied the
Arab Palestinians any such rights at all. One of the most brazen and
outrageous of these NEWLY INSERTED footnotes states:
"FOR A NATION TO COMMIT THE SIN OF ANTI-SEMITISM BRINGS INEVITABLE
JUDGMENT." (page 1920, footnote (3) to Genesis 12:3.) (our
emphasis
added)
This statement sounds like something from Ariel Sharon, or the Chief
Rabbi in Tel Aviv, or Theodore Herzl, the founder of Modern Zionism.
But these exact words are found between the covers of the 1967 Edition
of the Oxford Bible that is followed by millions of American
churchgoers and students and is used by their leaders as a source for
their preaching and teaching...
All of this language, including the prophecy about the future being
really bad for those who "persecute the Jews," reflects and furthers
the goals of the Anti-Defamation League, which has a stated goal of
creating an environment where opposing the State of Israel is
considered "anti-Semitism," and "anti-Semitism" is a "hate crime"
punishable by law. This dream has become a reality in the Christian
Zionist churches of America. Only someone with these goals could have
written this footnote...
It is tempting to engage in academic arguments to show readers the
lack of logic in Scofield's theology, which has led followers of
Christ so far astray. It seems all too easy to refute the various
Bible references given in support of Scofield's strange writings. But
we will resist the temptation to do this, because others have already
done it quite well, and more importantly because it leads us off our
course.
It is also inviting to dig into Scofield's sordid past as Canfield has
done, revealing him to be a convicted felon and probable pathological
liar, but we leave that to others, because our interest is not in
Scofield's life, but in saving the lives of millions of innocent
people who are threatened by the continuing Zionist push for perpetual
war.
Instead, we will examine the words on their face. The words in these
1967 footnotes are Zionist propaganda that has been tacked onto the
text of a Christian Bible. Most of them make no sense, except to
support the Zionist State of Israel in its war against the
Palestinians and any other wars it may enter into. In this purpose,
Zionism has completely succeeded. American Judeo-Christians, more
recently labeled "Christian Zionists," have remained mute during wars
upon Israel's enemies in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia and
elsewhere. It is past time to stop the spilling of more blood, some
of it Christian blood...
And what is it that Scofield said that did not satisfy the Zionists
who rewrote the Oxford 1967 Edition?
The answer is an easy one. Most Arab and Islamic scholars consider
Arabs in general and the Prophet Mohamed in particular to be direct
descendants of Ishmael, Abraham's first son and older half-brother of
Isaac, whose son Jacob was later to become known as "Israel." Many
Arabs believe that through Ishmael they are co-heirs of to Abraham's
promise, and they correctly believe that present day Israelis have no
Biblical right to steal their land. Jewish Talmudic folklore also
speaks of Ishmael, so the Zionists apparently felt they had to alter
how Christians viewed the two half brothers in order to prevent
Christians from siding with the Arabs over the land theft.
The Zionists solved this dilemma by inserting a senseless footnote in
the 1967 (Oxford) Scofield Reference Bible which, in effect,
substitutes the word "Jews" for the words "The Israelitish people and
Ishmaelitish people," as Scofield originally wrote it. The
Israelitish and Ishmaelitish people lived 3000 years ago, but the
Zionists want to claim the Arabs' part of the presumed birthright
right now! Read it again; "all Jews are natural descendants of
Abraham, but are not necessarily his spiritual posterity."
And there is more of such boondogglery in the Oxford bible. On the
same page 1137 we find yet another brand new Zionist-friendly note
referring to the New Testament book of John 8:37.
"(2) 8:44 THAT THIS SATANIC FATHERHOOD CANNOT BE LIMITED TO THE
PHARISEES IS MADE CLEAR IN 1Jn3:8" (note SRB 1967 Edition, P1137 to
John 8:44)
Let us look at the verse Oxford is trying to soften, wherein Jesus is
speaking directly to the Pharisees, who were the Jewish leaders of his
day, and to no one else:
"YE ARE OF YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL, AND THE LUST OF YOUR FATHER YE WILL
DO. HE WAS A MURDERER FROM THE BEGINNING, AND ABODE NOT IN THE TRUTH,
BECAUSE THERE IS NO TRUTH IN HIM. WHEN HE SPEAKEST A LIE, HE SPEAKEST
OF HIS OWN; FOR HE IS A LIAR, AND THE FATHER OF IT." John 8:44 King
James Ed.)
Those are plain words. No wonder the Zionists wanted to dilute what
Jesus said. Not only did Oxford add a new footnote in 1967, but they
inserted no less than four reference cues into the King James sacred
text, directing readers to their specious, apostate footnotes. It
seems the Zionists cannot deny what Jesus said about Pharisees, but
they do not want to bear the burden of being "sons of Satan" all by
themselves. Now here's the text of the verse to which Oxford refers
in order to try to solve this problem:
"HE THAT COMMITETH SIN IS OF THE DEVIL; FOR THE DEVIL SINNETH FROM THE
BEGINNING. FOR THIS PURPOSE THE SON OF GOD WAS MANIFESTED, THAT HE
MIGHT DESTROY THE WORK OF THE DEVIL." (1Jn3:8.King James Edition)
Fine, but this verse, spoken by Jesus to His followers in a speech
about avoiding sin, in no way supports Oxford's argument that Jesus
was not talking directly to and about the Pharisee leaders when he
called them "Sons of Satan" in John 8:44. It is a different book
written at a different time to a different audience. This is typical
Christian Zionist diversion.
To find out to whom Jesus is speaking you must read the rest of John
8, not something from another book. Furthermore, John 8:44 is only
one of some 77 verses where Jesus confronted the Pharisees by name and
in many cases addressed them as "satanic" and as "vipers." Oxford
simply ignores most of these denunciations by Jesus, adding no notes
at all, and the Christian Zionists go along without question.
(The New Jewish Encyclopedia, edited by David Bridger, PH.D in
association with Samual Wolk, Rabbi, J.S.D, copyright 1962, Published
by Behrman House, inc.,1261 Broadway, New York 1, N.Y., Library of
Congress Catalog Card Number: 62-17079, says on page 376:
"The Pharisees are therefore regarded as those authorities who helped
develop and preserve traditional Judaism as it is known today.")
These are a few examples of Zionist perversions of scripture that have
shaped the doctrine of America's most politically powerful religious
subculture, the "Christian Zionists" as Ariel Sharon calls them, or
the dispensationalists, as intellectual followers call themselves, or
the Judeo-Christians as our politically-correct politicians describe
themselves. Today's Mid-East wars are not caused by the
predisposition of the peoples, who are no more warlike than any human
tribes. Without the pandering to Jewish and Zionist interests that is
carried out by this subculture--the most vocal being the celebrity
Christian evangelists--there would be no such wars, for there is not
enough support for war outside of organized Zionist Christianity.
Reverend Stephen Sizer of Christ Church, England
is perhaps the most dedicated new
scholar writing about the Scofield Bible craze, popularly known as
Christian Zionism. He has quipped, "Judging Christianity by looking
at the American Evangelists is kind of like judging the British by
watching Benny Hill."
Reverend Sizer's remark brings to mind another Benny; his name is
Benny Hinn, not a British comic, but an American evangelist spouting
inflammatory hate-filled words aimed at Muslims everywhere. Hinn was
speaking to the applause of an aroused crowd of thousands in the
American Airline Center in Dallas when he shocked two Ft. Worth Star
Telegram religious reporters covering the July 3d event by announcing,
"We are on God's side," speaking of Palestine. He shouted, "This is
not a war between Jews and Arabs. It is a war between God and the
Devil." Lest there be any doubt about it, Hinn was talking about a
blood war in which the Israelis are "God" and the Palestinians are
"the Devil."
Benny Hinn is one of hundreds of acknowledged Christian Zionists who
have no problem spouting outright race hatred and who join in
unconditional support for Israel without regard for which or how many
of Israel's enemies are killed or crippled. His boldness stems from
his knowledge that the vast majority of professing Christians from
whom he seeks his lavish support-the Judeo-Christians, or Christian
Zionists--do not shrink at his words, because they have been
conditioned to accept them, just as Roman citizens learned to accept
Christian persecution, even burning alive, under Nero. Several
evangelists in attendance affirmed their agreement with Hinn "the
line between Christians and Muslims is the difference between good and
evil."
An amazing number of professing Christians are in agreement with the
fanatical likes of Hinn, including Gary Bauer, Ralph Reed, James
Dobson and hundreds more. Yet Hinn's profit-seeking fanaticism is not
as shocking as that of men like Richard Land of the Southern Baptist
Convention who occupy the highest positions in the area of
conservative religious thought. Land may have stopped short of
branding all Muslims as devils, but he attacked their leader and
Prophet and stated that, according to Baptist Bible interpretation,
the Palestinian people have no legal rights to property in Palestine.
(see note)...
Christian Zionism may be the most bloodthirsty apostasy in the entire
history of Christianity or any other religion. Shame o | |
