February 3, 2007 at 15:43:32
Six Lies You Shouldn't Believe About Iran, Especially Since, Hey,
There's People Down Here.
by Rosa Schmidt Azadi
It feels so different watching an aircraft carrier group coming toward you
than watching it sailing away from you toward another part of the world.
I'm an American who used to live in New York City. All my life, when I
heard about warships, it was US warships going places far away. I never
even imagined hostile warships sailing toward New York. Now I'm in Tehran,
and aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis is heading our way. And as it
sails, people are discussing Israel and/or the US bombing Iran as if my
family and 69 million other people weren't even here. I'm getting scared.
Most Iranians that I know don't worry about this as much as I do, though
they're wondering how the sanctions will affect the economy. Khomeini had
a famous saying that we actually saw on a sign yesterday in another town:
"America can't do anything to us." Some friends here speculate that Bush
just needs an enemy so that he can continue his programs in the US, and
that Iran is the enemy du jour. I wish I could believe that.
The way I see it, somebody has to stop the US president right now, and
it's very upsetting that the Congress isn't doing it. My frustration is
greater because I'm in a country where the Internet is not completely
available. For example, I tried to send a donation to Dennis Kucinich, but
PayPal wouldn't take it because of the embargo. I tried to write to my
Congressperson, but the Islamic Republic blocked the communication,
presumably because it was with the US government. (Sometimes news stories
that I want to read are blocked, too, but there are ways around that.)
If the US and/or Israel attack Iran, it will be a war based on lies, just
like the Iraq war. Iraq didn't have WMD, but Iraqis died in the hundreds
of thousands. The lies about Iran seem intended to, first, make Iran look
like the new Nazi state that must be bombed so as to avoid a new
Holocaust, and second, make Americans fear that Iran will hurt our
soldiers in Iraq or give nuclear weapons to terrorists who will hurt us in
"the homeland."
History shows that Americans are very susceptible to demonization of
particular leaders of countries that the US wants to attack. Remember
Castro? Noriega? Saddam? Now it's Ahmadinejad. Whatever people think of
views attributed to Ahmadinejad, it remains the case that it's not morally
acceptable to kill people because of their president, whether that
president be Saddam Hussein, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or George Bush.
I want to discuss six big lies we are hearing to justify expanding the war
to Iran.
LIE NUMBER 1: President Ahmadinejad "has repeatedly threatened to wipe
Israel off the map."
Even Al Jazeera English version based in Qatar keeps saying that. Why
hasn't this mistranslation been corrected after it's been thoroughly
exposed? (in the Guardianand prisonplanet.com)
Juan Cole, in Informed Comment, explained how "wiped off the map" was a
mistranslation; Ahmadinejad was restating the official Iranian policy that
the government system based on Zionism must end. And why the heck can't
newscasters learn to pronounce the man's name? Anyone who knows Farsi
could teach them in a minute. Why should we think they know what he said,
in Farsi, if they can't even say his name?
LIE NUMBER 2: The Iranian government is run by 1930s-style anti-Semites.
Last Spring, a story was planted that the Iranian parliament had passed a
law forcing Iranian Jews to wear yellow badges. "Fourth Reich," screamed a
banner headline on one of the New York City tabloids. In a few days, the
neocon source was disclosed and the story was completely retracted by the
Canadian paper in which it was first published. The New York paper never
apologized. When I mention the "yellow badges" to people here in Iran,
they look incredulous. "But ... that didn't happen." I know. But I'll bet
there are some Americans, and Israelis, who actually believe Jewish
Iranians are walking around wearing yellow badges.
LIE NUMBER 3: Iran is bent on wiping out the Jews.
Maybe Americans should have a little humility and remember how
recalcitrant the US was about accepting Jewish refugees fleeing Hitler
during WWII. Iran has a very good history, under Cyrus the Great, of
protecting the Jews. The long history of Jews in Persia is indicated by a
monument to the Jewish prophet Daniel in the south of Iran. As for the
European Holocaust deniers who were among the speakers at the Holocaust
conference in Tehran, I just can't figure it out, unless Ahmadinejad is
trying to win popularity points with pro-Palestinian regional populations
by appearing to be unafraid of Israel and the US. Or he could be a fool
and/or a religious fundamentalist (like some other presidents who shall go
unnamed).
LIE NUMBER 4: Iran is causing trouble in Iraq and threatening Arab states.
Everyone should be very clear: Who's meddling in Iraq, who's flying
thousands of missions shooting at Iraqi citizens, who attacked whose
diplomatic mission, who is detaining whose citizens, and who has announced
that it is supporting subversive operations inside whose country and
across whose border (from Iraqi Kurdistan)? Most likely some of the
undemocratic and unpopular rulers in the Middle East are afraid that their
own citizens may be attracted to the Iranian model. That may concern the
US oil men and financiers who have business and military ties with them,
but it's not a reason for Americans to back destruction of Iran.
LIE NUMBER 5: Iran is dangerous to humanity because it's trying to get
nuclear weapons.
Other people who know more than I are writing about the nuclear issues.
But regarding threats by Israel and the US to bomb Iranian nuclear
research sites, that's a violation of international law, not to mention a
danger to innocent civilians. Regulating nuclear activities is the
responsibility of the IAEA. So far, the IAEA has declared that Iran does
not have nuclear weapons and is in compliance with the nuclear
non-proliferation treaty. That's more than we can say about the USA, which
is supposed to be actively disarming its 10,000 warheads, not refurbishing
them and developing new kinds of nuclear weapons. Though there are good
reasons to think Iran does not want nuclear weapons, let's imagine, just
for the sake of argument, that Iran would someday acquire them. Humanity
has managed to live with other countries having nukes. The only reason
Iran's having nukes would be of greater concern would be if the lies
spelled out above were true. But they're lies.
LIE NUMBER 6: Iranians are looking to the USA to bring them democracy,
just like the USA has brought democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq.
I'm living here in Tehran, Iran, now, with my family, as are many other
Americans, Europeans, Asians, and other foreigners. We are inviting
friends and relatives to come and visit. The skiing's fine. More democracy
and more civil liberties would be better, but there are elections and
there are laws and there are non-governmental organizations and you can
approach public officials. Whatever's not right with this country is the
business of the people here to work on. Some Iranians living in other
countries want the US to "save" Iran. I don't know, but I suspect people
like that would like the US to magically bring back the good old days when
the US-allied Shah sat on his throne and the well-off classes had a fine
life. If anyone finds any overseas Iranians who actually are willing to
see Iran bombed, I hope the reporters ask them if they have any relatives
currently living in Iran. I hope Americans don't take these has-beens too
seriously.
Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress
people:
Stop Bush From Attacking Iran
Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and
local newspapers
Rosa Schmidt Azadi is a long-time peace activist, an anthropologist, and a
retired civil servant who's also a wife, daughter, sister, aunt,
great-aunt, godmother, and the mother of two college students. After
walking out of the smoke of the 9-11 attacks in New York City and
returning to participate in the recovery effort, Rosa began working to
prevent further death and destruction in other countries at the hands of
the U.S. government. Participating in a peace vigil at the World Trade
Center site for more than three years gave her the privilege of talking
with thousands of people from all over the world about things that matter
most. Dr. Azadi has earned two advanced degrees and is still learning.
Currently, she's splitting her time between Tehran, Iran, and upstate New
York.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_rosa_sch_070202_six_lies_you_shouldn.htm
.
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Lies You Shouldn't Believe About Iran... |
03 Feb 2007 10:37:36 PM |
|
|
"Docrodile" <swampthing@hellsbayou.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
eq3b08$bon$1@aioe.org...
February 3, 2007 at 15:43:32
Six Lies You Shouldn't Believe About Iran, Especially Since, Hey,
There's People Down Here.
by Rosa Schmidt Azadi
LIE NUMBER 1: President Ahmadinejad "has repeatedly threatened to wipe
Israel off the map."
Not a lie, true, he did say that:
"The real cure for the conflict is elimination of the Zionist regime.
That is the one time she said it happened.
But ALSO said that:
"The way to peace in the Middle East is the destruction of Israel."
*Both* quotes are reported there:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/04/wmid204.xml
And he also said that:
"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation. The
Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one
storm."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/15/wiran15.xml
And also said that:
"So long as Israel exists in the region.there will never be peace and
security in the Middle East. So the resolution of the Holocaust issue will
end in the destruction of Israel."
http://www.roozonline.com/english/015942.shtml
So this women has no clue, probably because the Iranian governement shows
her what they want her to see.
LIE NUMBER 2: The Iranian government is run by 1930s-style anti-Semites.
Last Spring, a story was planted that the Iranian parliament had passed a
law forcing Iranian Jews to wear yellow badges. "Fourth Reich," screamed a
banner headline on one of the New York City tabloids. In a few days, the
neocon source was disclosed and the story was completely retracted by the
Canadian paper in which it was first published. The New York paper never
apologized. When I mention the "yellow badges" to people here in Iran,
they look incredulous. "But ... that didn't happen." I know. But I'll bet
there are some Americans, and Israelis, who actually believe Jewish
Iranians are walking around wearing yellow badges.
Well, the yellow badge part is true, there is no such law in Iran, it was
retracted by the Post
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=6626a0fa-99de-4f1e-aebe-bb91af82abb3
and worldwide (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3252934,00.html for
isntance). I don't remember this being an issue since Iran pretension to
nukes. It would still make a big deal otherwise.
But let's see the online encyclopedia for that, and the rest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Jews
In 2006, a false story in the National Post of Canada claimed that the
Iranian parliament was considering requiring a yellow insignia for Jews in
Iran. The story was confirmed by the associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal
Center. AIPAC sent out an "e-mail blast" to reporters on the story, which
became a major press event in the United States. The false story turned out
to originate with Iranian-born journalist Amir Taheri from the Benador
Associates speakers bureau.
OK, we know that. Now about the real discrimination (same wikipedia link):
Discrimination
Like other religious minorities in Iran, Jews suffer from officially
sanctioned discrimination, particularly in the areas of employment,
education, and housing. According to the U.S. Department of State, Jews may
not occupy senior positions in the government or the military and are
prevented from serving in the judiciary and security services and from
becoming public school heads.[29]
The anti-Israel policies of the Iranian government, along with a perception
among radical Muslims that all Jewish citizens support the State of Israel,
create a hostile atmosphere for the Jewish community. In 2004, many Iranian
newspapers noted the one-hundredth anniversary of the publishing of the
anti-Semitic forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.[29] Jews often are
the target of degrading caricatures in the Iranian press.[30] Jewish leaders
reportedly are reluctant to draw attention to official mistreatment of their
community due to fear of government reprisal. (...)
With some exceptions, there is little restriction of or interference with
the Jewish religious practice; however, education of Jewish children has
become more difficult in recent years. The Iranian government reportedly
allows Hebrew instruction, recognizing that it is necessary for Jewish
religious practice. However, it strongly discourages the distribution of
Hebrew texts, in practice making it difficult to teach the language.
Moreover, the Iranian government has required that several Jewish schools
remain open on Saturdays, the Jewish Sabbath, in conformity with the
schedule of other schools in the school system. Since working or attending
school on the Sabbath violates Jewish law, this requirement has made it
impossible for observant Jews both to attend school and adhere to a
fundamental tenet of their religion. (...)
Jewish citizens are permitted to obtain passports and to travel outside the
country, but they often are denied the multiple-exit permits normally issued
to other citizens. With the exception of certain business travelers, the
authorities require Jewish persons to obtain clearance and pay additional
fees before each trip abroad. The Iranian government is concerned about the
emigration of Jewish citizens and permission generally is not granted for
all members of a Jewish family to travel outside the country at the same
time. (etc...)
See also: Human Rights Watch World Report 2006: Iran:
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.htm?tbl=RSDCOI&page=research&id=43cfaea120
Amnesty International Report on Iran:
http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/iran/document.do?id=ar&yr=2006
LIE NUMBER 3: Iran is bent on wiping out the Jews.
Well, if the above from, wikipedia is true (that they believe "that all
Jewish citizens support the State of Israel") and since they (really) said
that they want to wipe out Israel in a big storm (etc...), of course it
infers that, but of course, Ahmadinejad will never say it outright, just
like Hitler never said it oputright evn though he was doing it.
LIE NUMBER 4: Iran is causing trouble in Iraq and threatening Arab states.
This is a fact, hundreds of billions are spent by the Iranian regime to
destabilize Iraq and there are almost 40,000 names of Iranian agents that
have been made public few days ago in Paris. I posted the link on this NG a
couple of days ago. As for the rest, the support of Hezbollah in Lebanon is
a known fact.
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/iran_hezbollah_e1b.htm
(contains a picture of the two terrorist leaders that are about to kiss each
others ofr those that love them so much here).
What would she know about that anyway? I doubt the regime allowed the news
from Paris or is letting on hints on their plots in other states.
LIE NUMBER 5: Iran is dangerous to humanity because it's trying to get
nuclear weapons.
Is there evidence that Iran wants a bomb?
The UN atomic agency found traces of highly enriched uranium at an Iranian
site linked to the country's defense ministry, diplomats said May 14. The
Islamic republic denies accusations it wants to make nuclear arms and says
it is only interested in uranium to generate power.
The International Atomic Energy Agency determined earlier traces of
weapons-grade uranium were imported on equipment from Pakistan that Iran
bought on the black market during nearly two decades of clandestine activity
discovered just over three years ago.
http://info.jpost.com/C006/Supplements/Iranian.Threat/qa.html
".With respect to the needs of Islamic countries, we are ready to transfer
nuclear know-how to these countries."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/09/16/wiran16.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/09/16/ixnewstop.html
LIE NUMBER 6: Iranians are looking to the USA to bring them democracy,
just like the USA has brought democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq.
Well, the very recent scuffle a few days ago initiated by students against
the regime in Teheran says otherwise.
Do I need to put the news here? I doubt they talk about Iraq or Afghanistan
as these are not successes yet. But that must be what the reime tells her.
But yes, the US is allocationg funds to promote human rights and democracy
in Iran, FOR THESE PEOPLE. The regime will certainly not do it themselves if
they even have her deny the obviousness of this. No new funds for 2007
though, http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/72448.pdf :
Congress and Regime Change. The State Department has used funds provided in
recent appropriations to support pro-democracy activists. The funds
represent congressional sentiment for efforts to change Iran's regime. The
policy is discussed in the State Department report "Supporting Human Rights
and Democracy: U.S. Record 2005-2006," released April 6, 2006. Iran asserts
that such steps represent a violation of the 1981 "Algiers Accords" that
settled the Iran hostage crisis and provide for non-interference in each
others' internal affairs. The following have been appropriated. (...)
To summarize we see CLEARLY that ALL the lies are HERS.
J.
Take action -- click [your *****]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Lies You Shouldn't Believe About Iran... |
04 Feb 2007 12:05:35 AM |
|
|
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:kqdxh.28892$Oa.28469@edtnps82...
"Docrodile" <swampthing@hellsbayou.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
eq3b08$bon$1@aioe.org...
February 3, 2007 at 15:43:32
Six Lies You Shouldn't Believe About Iran, Especially Since, Hey,
There's People Down Here.
by Rosa Schmidt Azadi
LIE NUMBER 1: President Ahmadinejad "has repeatedly threatened to wipe
Israel off the map."
Not a lie, true, he did say that:
"The real cure for the conflict is elimination of the Zionist regime.
That is the one time she said it happened.
But ALSO said that:
"The way to peace in the Middle East is the destruction of Israel."
*Both* quotes are reported there:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/04/wmid204.xml
And he also said that:
"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation. The
Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one
storm."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/15/wiran15.xml
And also said that:
"So long as Israel exists in the region.there will never be peace and
security in the Middle East. So the resolution of the Holocaust issue
will end in the destruction of Israel."
http://www.roozonline.com/english/015942.shtml
So this women has no clue, probably because the Iranian governement
shows her what they want her to see.
I'm going to remind you of something uncomfortably contradictory to the
hysteria and demonization you'd like to whip up against Iran here.
As you know, Nikita Kruschev used to make some blustery remarks about
getting rid of the capitalist world and the US and its imperialistic
designs, as he often referred to it.
The Ayatollah Khomeini, as you also know, made blustery remarks about
Israel being removed from the Middle East.
The uncomfortable part for you, Jeano, is that what these two previous
leaders threatened never came about and the chief reasons are (1)
propaganda for domestic consumption was a chief motivating factor for
saying such things, and (2) either a mutually assured destruction was an
effective deterrent, or in the case of Khomeini's Iran, Israel was
militarily much more powerful than Iran (and likely possessed an array of
nukes), and was solidly backed by the US's military power. And Khomeini
had to solidify domestic support.
Now, we come to the present day, and we hear Mahmoud blowin' a lot of
steam toward Israel, but is it unlikely Mahmoud will have the support of
the clerics to launch an annihilative war against Israel, or that he and
his nation wouldn't be around but a short time after they launched a
mass-destructive attack, or even a large-scale conventional one.
What does simple logic and rationality tell you in this case, Jeano? Not
what your interpretations of Nosty quatrains tell you, or your biasedness
against the Muslim community tells you, or your fawning over the Jews as
if they were a perfect people and had a flawless, God-guided
government...no, Jeano, not any of that irrationality or dreaminess, but
just hard rational common sense in the real world of human survival on the
planet??
There's no doubt in my mind that Iran wants to be a revived major power in
that region, and most of its efforts, militarily and economically, center
on that goal in that region. They have a regional military force that can
extend beyond that area, of course, but it is primarily to protect and
control the Persian Gulf area and most of the Middle Eastern area. Along
with Syria, a close ally, and ties they're forging with other Arab states,
including more overtures toward Saudi Arabia, a previous 'adversary' of
sorts, Iran is clearly embarking on empire-building. And that bodes ill
for Western corporate investment if they wish to dominate or control, and
maximize profits there. Iran is obviously in the way of Western corporate
goals of dominance of the oil reserves, and to a lesser degree, natural
gas and other resources.
The quotes you give have been disputed by some interpreters and if you
can, for example, understand that the 'storm' Ahmadinejad referred to, can
be easily be reinterpreted as something NOT having to do with Iran
attacking and destroying Israel, but that the corruption of Israel and its
Western whoring will be the 'storm' as well as it's constant friction with
its Arab neighbors wearing it down in the 'storm.' Ahmadinejad thinks
Israel is a Zionist bed of lies and hate. That will also bring about the
'storm' that will end its existence.
You cannot find hardly one statement from Ahmadinejad that has not been
disputed by expert translators that has him saying that Iran will come
down upon Israel with its military and destroy it. There are suggestions
and interpretations, but not clearly agreed-upon translation -- they are
disputed, and not just the words, but the meaning of the words and terms
he uses.
I've not seen a single statement from him where he says "Iran will destroy
Israel, we will come down on it someday and kill the Jews, and vanquish
their nation forever."
He has talked, instead, about the Jewish state being absorbed by the rest
of the world community, and by that action, Israel being removed from the
region. There's no doubt in my mind that he wants Israel gone from the
region, but the mechanism as to how he'd like to have that happen is
unclear. It sounds like he wants them to pack up and move to other lands,
as Hitler once proposed, early on. As a reminder, this lady notes the US
had some great opportunities to help the Jews resettle, but rebuffed them.
Again, as an underscoring of a previous point I made, Ahmadinejad can
certainly make suggestive threats and he can hate Jews and he can bellow
about how powerful and determined the Iranians are, but what he says and
what is, rationally, likely to occur are two different things. You know
politicians can talk up a good, tough, scary threat, but the stakes are so
high, and the risks so great, that they are unlikely to proceed ahead, to
make good on their threats.
So, I don't think this lady lies. I think she interprets Ahmadinejad in a
different manner. I don't know the dialect and I don't think you do,
either. I am not versed in the Arabic language the Iranians use, so I
depend on others. You can find differing interpretations of his speeches.
I have read his long letters to Bush, the American people, and the UN
Assembly. I see a complex man, deeply religious, an idealist, and a man
who obviously thinks the Mahdi is very near. But I also see an intelligent
man, despite the fanaticism, and a man who has truthful insight into the
Western mindset and life, etc. He's no dummy, Jeano, and he may be a
little off his rocker, but he has much to say that is true. I would bet
hardly anyone in America has read his letters in totality, or the
transcripts of his major speeches in the West. I have. And I don't see a
total nutcase -- I see a man driven by ultraconservative ideology,
fiercely nationalistic, and extremely spiritual in his published
statements. Does he hate the Jews? Yes! Does he want Iran to militarily
wipe 'em out? I disagree with that interpretation!
LIE NUMBER 2: The Iranian government is run by 1930s-style
anti-Semites.
Last Spring, a story was planted that the Iranian parliament had passed
a law forcing Iranian Jews to wear yellow badges. "Fourth Reich,"
screamed a banner headline on one of the New York City tabloids. In a
few days, the neocon source was disclosed and the story was completely
retracted by the Canadian paper in which it was first published. The
New York paper never apologized. When I mention the "yellow badges" to
people here in Iran, they look incredulous. "But ... that didn't
happen." I know. But I'll bet there are some Americans, and Israelis,
who actually believe Jewish Iranians are walking around wearing yellow
badges.
Well, the yellow badge part is true, there is no such law in Iran, it
was retracted by the Post
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=6626a0fa-99de-4f1e-aebe-bb91af82abb3
and worldwide (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3252934,00.html
for isntance). I don't remember this being an issue since Iran
pretension to nukes. It would still make a big deal otherwise.
But let's see the online encyclopedia for that, and the rest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Jews
In 2006, a false story in the National Post of Canada claimed that the
Iranian parliament was considering requiring a yellow insignia for Jews
in Iran. The story was confirmed by the associate dean of the Simon
Wiesenthal Center. AIPAC sent out an "e-mail blast" to reporters on the
story, which became a major press event in the United States. The false
story turned out to originate with Iranian-born journalist Amir Taheri
from the Benador Associates speakers bureau.
OK, we know that. Now about the real discrimination (same wikipedia
link):
Discrimination
Like other religious minorities in Iran, Jews suffer from officially
sanctioned discrimination, particularly in the areas of employment,
education, and housing. According to the U.S. Department of State, Jews
may not occupy senior positions in the government or the military and
are prevented from serving in the judiciary and security services and
from becoming public school heads.[29]
The anti-Israel policies of the Iranian government, along with a
perception among radical Muslims that all Jewish citizens support the
State of Israel, create a hostile atmosphere for the Jewish community.
In 2004, many Iranian newspapers noted the one-hundredth anniversary of
the publishing of the anti-Semitic forgery The Protocols of the Elders
of Zion.[29] Jews often are the target of degrading caricatures in the
Iranian press.[30] Jewish leaders reportedly are reluctant to draw
attention to official mistreatment of their community due to fear of
government reprisal. (...)
With some exceptions, there is little restriction of or interference
with the Jewish religious practice; however, education of Jewish
children has become more difficult in recent years. The Iranian
government reportedly allows Hebrew instruction, recognizing that it is
necessary for Jewish religious practice. However, it strongly
discourages the distribution of Hebrew texts, in practice making it
difficult to teach the language. Moreover, the Iranian government has
required that several Jewish schools remain open on Saturdays, the
Jewish Sabbath, in conformity with the schedule of other schools in the
school system. Since working or attending school on the Sabbath violates
Jewish law, this requirement has made it impossible for observant Jews
both to attend school and adhere to a fundamental tenet of their
religion. (...)
Jewish citizens are permitted to obtain passports and to travel outside
the country, but they often are denied the multiple-exit permits
normally issued to other citizens. With the exception of certain
business travelers, the authorities require Jewish persons to obtain
clearance and pay additional fees before each trip abroad. The Iranian
government is concerned about the emigration of Jewish citizens and
permission generally is not granted for all members of a Jewish family
to travel outside the country at the same time. (etc...)
See also: Human Rights Watch World Report 2006: Iran:
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.htm?tbl=RSDCOI&page=research&id=43cfaea120
Amnesty International Report on Iran:
http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/iran/document.do?id=ar&yr=2006
The 'yellow badge' hysteria was whipped up *****, Jeano, by extreme
right-wing groups and totally bogus. It is a clear indication that many
people, you included, would like to demonize this Iranian government and
get the world into more warfare as a result.That's irresponsible behavior
I can't support. And the 'yellow badge' horseshit is a reminder that there
are plenty of racist fanatics that will use anything to move against an
ethnic group they despise...as well as war-mongers who just love the
glory, sadism, and mass murder.
LIE NUMBER 3: Iran is bent on wiping out the Jews.
Well, if the above from, wikipedia is true (that they believe "that all
Jewish citizens support the State of Israel") and since they (really)
said that they want to wipe out Israel in a big storm (etc...), of
course it infers that, but of course, Ahmadinejad will never say it
outright, just like Hitler never said it oputright evn though he was
doing it.
LIE NUMBER 4: Iran is causing trouble in Iraq and threatening Arab
states.
This is a fact, hundreds of billions are spent by the Iranian regime to
destabilize Iraq and there are almost 40,000 names of Iranian agents
that have been made public few days ago in Paris. I posted the link on
this NG a couple of days ago. As for the rest, the support of Hezbollah
in Lebanon is a known fact.
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/iran_hezbollah_e1b.htm
(contains a picture of the two terrorist leaders that are about to kiss
each others ofr those that love them so much here).
Well, sure, Jeano, Iran and Syria and attempting to control part or all of
Iraq. No one disputes that, really. But what is disputed is why the US
thinks its presence there can make the situation better in a civil war. It
cannot. History speaks against it. And I know these embattled assholes in
the US administration would love to redirect public attention to Iran, and
get the heat off the colossal blunder they've created, and continue to
escalate at this moment. I know you would, too, and have mental orgasms
just thinking about how Nosty prophecies will be fulfilled, in your
dreams, and how you and Bush will be vindicated some day...showing us
liberals how wrong and stupid we were! LOL! Fat chance, Jeano...keep
having wet dreams, bucko.
What would she know about that anyway? I doubt the regime allowed the
news from Paris or is letting on hints on their plots in other states.
LIE NUMBER 5: Iran is dangerous to humanity because it's trying to get
nuclear weapons.
Is there evidence that Iran wants a bomb?
The UN atomic agency found traces of highly enriched uranium at an
Iranian site linked to the country's defense ministry, diplomats said
May 14. The Islamic republic denies accusations it wants to make nuclear
arms and says it is only interested in uranium to generate power.
The International Atomic Energy Agency determined earlier traces of
weapons-grade uranium were imported on equipment from Pakistan that Iran
bought on the black market during nearly two decades of clandestine
activity discovered just over three years ago.
http://info.jpost.com/C006/Supplements/Iranian.Threat/qa.html
Well, sure, practically everyone thinks they're wanting to develop a nuke
weapon out of the enriched uranium, Jeano. Big news! LOL! But it is more
likely they will use it as a deterrent, or commit national suicide if they
use it on anyone. US aggression toward Iraq has been a spur to get that
deterrence. If they had it right now, Jeano, you'd not see the US even
having a public thought fart about attacking Iran! The nuke deterrence
worked for decades in the Cold War, and it'll work for Iran now. They will
get their nuke weapon, and we will have to adjust to it. Or, we will hit
thier facilities at the greatest risk to ourselves economically and
militarily. I don't think Bush wants that, but I could be wrong. He wants
a propagandistic victory, though. And so does Ahmadinejad. It could get
ugly soon, but will it be all-out warfare? Hmmmm...don't think so.
".With respect to the needs of Islamic countries, we are ready to
transfer nuclear know-how to these countries."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/09/16/wiran16.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/09/16/ixnewstop.html
LIE NUMBER 6: Iranians are looking to the USA to bring them democracy,
just like the USA has brought democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq.
Well, the very recent scuffle a few days ago initiated by students
against the regime in Teheran says otherwise.
Do I need to put the news here? I doubt they talk about Iraq or
Afghanistan as these are not successes yet. But that must be what the
reime tells her.
But yes, the US is allocationg funds to promote human rights and
democracy in Iran, FOR THESE PEOPLE. The regime will certainly not do it
themselves if they even have her deny the obviousness of this. No new
funds for 2007 though,
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/72448.pdf :
Congress and Regime Change. The State Department has used funds provided
in recent appropriations to support pro-democracy activists. The funds
represent congressional sentiment for efforts to change Iran's regime.
The policy is discussed in the State Department report "Supporting Human
Rights and Democracy: U.S. Record 2005-2006," released April 6, 2006.
Iran asserts that such steps represent a violation of the 1981 "Algiers
Accords" that settled the Iran hostage crisis and provide for
non-interference in each others' internal affairs. The following have
been appropriated. (...)
To summarize we see CLEARLY that ALL the lies are HERS.
J.
There have been for many years some pro-Western protest movement in Iran,
Jeano, so where is the big news here? Is it organized and large enough to
bring the government to its knees there? Highly doubtful, unless economic
reforms continue to languish, unemployment climbs, discontent rises...it
could foment a popular revolt. However, I'd think it more likely Western
agents are involved in the protest movement, which is small according to
most accounts I've found...and they are getting some propaganda out of it.
I'm sure Iran's government knows this is true, and continue to be
unconcerned about it, as long as it continues at the same level of
activity.
Docrodile
Take action -- click [your *****]
No, click you *****, Jeano, and you are an extremist *****, to be sure. That
lady may be a bit naive, but she's trying to engender an atmosphere of
mutual trust and commonality between two cultures, and get them to talk
and not hurl threats back and forth. Anyone who agitates either side
towards war, is an *****. Are you an agitator, Jeano?? Yes, you are!
And you're just as full of lies as anyone I now, including your continued
unproved assertion that Syria has taken possession of Iraqi WMD. That is
why you are a fringe fanatic -- you just keep spilling out that brain
fartiness here and you can't prove it. So, maybe Ahmadinejad has his crazy
dreams, but do do you, Jeano. And you two have something in common -- you
both believe fervently in prophecies, and I know you'd like to see your
intepretations be proved correct...as I'm sure Mahmoud would in his
reading of the Koran, or Quran. You're both a 3 or 4 cards short of a
deck. LOL!
Docrodile :)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A/+2
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Lies You Shouldn't Believe About Iran... |
05 Feb 2007 08:15:37 PM |
|
|
"Docrodile" <swampthing@hellsbayou.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
eq3t3i$ft1$1@aioe.org...
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:kqdxh.28892$Oa.28469@edtnps82...
"Docrodile" <swampthing@hellsbayou.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
eq3b08$bon$1@aioe.org...
February 3, 2007 at 15:43:32
Six Lies You Shouldn't Believe About Iran, Especially Since, Hey,
There's People Down Here.
by Rosa Schmidt Azadi
LIE NUMBER 1: President Ahmadinejad "has repeatedly threatened to wipe
Israel off the map."
Not a lie, true, he did say that:
"The real cure for the conflict is elimination of the Zionist regime.
That is the one time she said it happened.
But ALSO said that:
"The way to peace in the Middle East is the destruction of Israel."
*Both* quotes are reported there:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/04/wmid204.xml
And he also said that:
"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation. The
Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one
storm."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/15/wiran15.xml
And also said that:
"So long as Israel exists in the region.there will never be peace and
security in the Middle East. So the resolution of the Holocaust issue
will end in the destruction of Israel."
http://www.roozonline.com/english/015942.shtml
So this women has no clue, probably because the Iranian governement shows
her what they want her to see.
I'm going to remind you of something uncomfortably contradictory to the
hysteria and demonization you'd like to whip up against Iran here.
As you know, Nikita Kruschev used to make some blustery remarks about
getting rid of the capitalist world and the US and its imperialistic
designs, as he often referred to it.
The Ayatollah Khomeini, as you also know, made blustery remarks about
Israel being removed from the Middle East.
The uncomfortable part for you, Jeano, is that what these two previous
leaders threatened never came about and the chief reasons are (1)
propaganda for domestic consumption was a chief motivating factor for
saying such things, and (2) either a mutually assured destruction was an
effective deterrent, or in the case of Khomeini's Iran, Israel was
militarily much more powerful than Iran (and likely possessed an array of
nukes), and was solidly backed by the US's military power. And Khomeini
had to solidify domestic support.
Now, we come to the present day, and we hear Mahmoud blowin' a lot of
steam toward Israel, but is it unlikely Mahmoud will have the support of
the clerics to launch an annihilative war against Israel, or that he and
his nation wouldn't be around but a short time after they launched a
mass-destructive attack, or even a large-scale conventional one.
The problem is that he doesn,t care for that. Rafsanjani is second only
after the all powerful Ayatollah Ali Khamenehi and as such he wields
considerable more power. He has also admitted that several million Muslims
could die in a nuclear war with Israel but states that would be a small
price to pay to get rid of Israel forever. You know that, but you don't
bring it up, why? So you can put forward this little history bit?
What does simple logic and rationality tell you in this case, Jeano? Not
what your interpretations of Nosty quatrains tell you, or your biasedness
against the Muslim community tells you, or your fawning over the Jews as
if they were a perfect people and had a flawless, God-guided
government...no, Jeano, not any of that irrationality or dreaminess, but
just hard rational common sense in the real world of human survival on the
planet??
There is no logic other that that of the suicide bomber who kills innocent
people. Religious paradise with lots of virgins, except this guy thinks he
speaks with the Madhi who tells them to do this. Don't you know anything?
There's no doubt in my mind that Iran wants to be a revived major power in
that region, and most of its efforts, militarily and economically, center
on that goal in that region. They have a regional military force that can
extend beyond that area, of course, but it is primarily to protect and
control the Persian Gulf area and most of the Middle Eastern area. Along
with Syria, a close ally, and ties they're forging with other Arab states,
including more overtures toward Saudi Arabia, a previous 'adversary' of
sorts, Iran is clearly embarking on empire-building. And that bodes ill
for Western corporate investment if they wish to dominate or control, and
maximize profits there. Iran is obviously in the way of Western corporate
goals of dominance of the oil reserves, and to a lesser degree, natural
gas and other resources.
With nuclear power, yeah, right.
The quotes you give have been disputed by some interpreters and if you
can, for example, understand that the 'storm' Ahmadinejad referred to, can
be easily be reinterpreted as something NOT having to do with Iran
attacking and destroying Israel, but that the corruption of Israel and its
Western whoring will be the 'storm' as well as it's constant friction with
its Arab neighbors wearing it down in the 'storm.' Ahmadinejad thinks
Israel is a Zionist bed of lies and hate. That will also bring about the
'storm' that will end its existence.
Except that there is no lie in the existence of Israël. Only these
murderrers who spend hundreds of billions to undermine the legitimate Hebrew
regime are making up these lies.
This storm is nuclear, unless we nuke his facilities first.
You cannot find hardly one statement from Ahmadinejad that has not been
disputed by expert translators that has him saying that Iran will come
down upon Israel with its military and destroy it. There are suggestions
and interpretations, but not clearly agreed-upon translation -- they are
disputed, and not just the words, but the meaning of the words and terms
he uses.
I showed you 4, Why should I continue arguing with you iif you ignore what I
show you and repeat the same lie aas this little ignorant, or spy you quote.
It is a loss of time.
Besides, this is recognized by everyone who is into intelligence.
It is not worth losing time over you, you only repeat the same ***** no
matter what the truth is.
You're a troll.
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Lies You Shouldn't Believe About Iran... |
05 Feb 2007 09:11:54 PM |
|
|
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:dxRxh.32559$Oa.26396@edtnps82...
"Docrodile" <swampthing@hellsbayou.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
eq3t3i$ft1$1@aioe.org...
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:kqdxh.28892$Oa.28469@edtnps82...
"Docrodile" <swampthing@hellsbayou.net> a écrit dans le message de
news: eq3b08$bon$1@aioe.org...
February 3, 2007 at 15:43:32
Six Lies You Shouldn't Believe About Iran, Especially Since,
Hey, There's People Down Here.
by Rosa Schmidt Azadi
LIE NUMBER 1: President Ahmadinejad "has repeatedly threatened to
wipe Israel off the map."
Not a lie, true, he did say that:
"The real cure for the conflict is elimination of the Zionist regime.
That is the one time she said it happened.
But ALSO said that:
"The way to peace in the Middle East is the destruction of Israel."
*Both* quotes are reported there:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/04/wmid204.xml
And he also said that:
"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation.
The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by
one storm."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/15/wiran15.xml
And also said that:
"So long as Israel exists in the region.there will never be peace and
security in the Middle East. So the resolution of the Holocaust issue
will end in the destruction of Israel."
http://www.roozonline.com/english/015942.shtml
So this women has no clue, probably because the Iranian governement
shows her what they want her to see.
I'm going to remind you of something uncomfortably contradictory to the
hysteria and demonization you'd like to whip up against Iran here.
As you know, Nikita Kruschev used to make some blustery remarks about
getting rid of the capitalist world and the US and its imperialistic
designs, as he often referred to it.
The Ayatollah Khomeini, as you also know, made blustery remarks about
Israel being removed from the Middle East.
The uncomfortable part for you, Jeano, is that what these two previous
leaders threatened never came about and the chief reasons are (1)
propaganda for domestic consumption was a chief motivating factor for
saying such things, and (2) either a mutually assured destruction was
an effective deterrent, or in the case of Khomeini's Iran, Israel was
militarily much more powerful than Iran (and likely possessed an array
of nukes), and was solidly backed by the US's military power. And
Khomeini had to solidify domestic support.
Now, we come to the present day, and we hear Mahmoud blowin' a lot of
steam toward Israel, but is it unlikely Mahmoud will have the support
of the clerics to launch an annihilative war against Israel, or that he
and his nation wouldn't be around but a short time after they launched
a mass-destructive attack, or even a large-scale conventional one.
The problem is that he doesn,t care for that. Rafsanjani is second only
after the all powerful Ayatollah Ali Khamenehi and as such he wields
considerable more power. He has also admitted that several million
Muslims could die in a nuclear war with Israel but states that would be
a small price to pay to get rid of Israel forever. You know that, but
you don't bring it up, why? So you can put forward this little history
bit?
If you want to engage me endlessly here about what religious or political
leaders SAY instead of what they DO, then by all means, let's mutually
waste our time together, Jeano. We both know that leaders are full of a
lot of hot air, and they use it fairly effectively on a naive, ignorant,
or hysterical audience...there have been many instances where Muslim and
Jewish leaders have issued bellicose threats to take military action, only
to have that action either greatly diminished in scale, or take the path
of propaganda or negotiations. I'm reminded of Sadat and Begin and their
historic accord, brokered by Carter. It has undoubtedly saved many lives
in the past 27 years or so, and I can well remember how many conservatives
thought it wasn't going to ever work. Liberals thought it could, and
supported it. I did. 'And it was great to see age-old animosities and
suspicions laid to rest between two bitter enemies since the time of
Ramses II. I think the press and politicians, and everyone, should think
more about the Camp David agreement in regards to the present friction
between Iran and the US or between Israel and Iran. Certainly, there are
news reports the Saudis and Iran are trying to work together on Lebanon
and Palestine...and more reports of friendly overtures from other Arab
nations toward Iran. Might we not think more of this, than think of
confrontation, subterfuge of governments, etc.?
What does simple logic and rationality tell you in this case, Jeano?
Not what your interpretations of Nosty quatrains tell you, or your
biasedness against the Muslim community tells you, or your fawning over
the Jews as if they were a perfect people and had a flawless,
God-guided government...no, Jeano, not any of that irrationality or
dreaminess, but just hard rational common sense in the real world of
human survival on the planet??
There is no logic other that that of the suicide bomber who kills
innocent people. Religious paradise with lots of virgins, except this
guy thinks he speaks with the Madhi who tells them to do this. Don't you
know anything?
Yes, I know about Ahmadinejad's remarks about the 'coming' Mahdi and is
fervent belief in the immediacy of it...but, again, I suggest that what a
politician believes and says, and what he does or is likely to do (with
great consequences against him and his people), are often two different
things in history. I'm not saying that any leader today might not go 'off
his rocker' and seize an opportunistic moment in history to make a radical
move...Bush has done this in Iraq, and the consequences are grave and
getting worse. Ahmadinejad may be lost in the clouds, I don't know. He may
not be thinking rationally enough to prevent such a radical motive to come
to fruition in a tragic way. But, I say that adversaries, such as Egypt
and Israel long ago showed to the world, must set down and talk about
their differences and misunderstandings, their fears, their hate, etc., or
the world forever continues a cycle of violence, as it has of course,
until one day the trajedy of it is way too costly for anyone to pay...the
end of a civilization, or perhaps the end of the mankind. As Kennedy put
it long ago, 'Man must put an end of war, or war will put an end to
mankind." I believe that.
There's no doubt in my mind that Iran wants to be a revived major power
in that region, and most of its efforts, militarily and economically,
center on that goal in that region. They have a regional military force
that can extend beyond that area, of course, but it is primarily to
protect and control the Persian Gulf area and most of the Middle
Eastern area. Along with Syria, a close ally, and ties they're forging
with other Arab states, including more overtures toward Saudi Arabia, a
previous 'adversary' of sorts, Iran is clearly embarking on
empire-building. And that bodes ill for Western corporate investment if
they wish to dominate or control, and maximize profits there. Iran is
obviously in the way of Western corporate goals of dominance of the oil
reserves, and to a lesser degree, natural gas and other resources.
With nuclear power, yeah, right.
The alternative is to risk a major war with Iran and some of its allies,
and to exacerbate an already high level of anti-Western terrorism, and
generally cause serious trouble with our oil-dependent economies. One more
lovely little war ain't gonna' make the world a better place to live...if
that were true, all the many wars fought so far would've taken us away
from conflict at this moment...but we face more of the same. Maybe you
want your interpretations of prophecies to be tragically fulfilled for
reasons only you can truly answer, in your soul, in your deepest
thoughts...but I can't see hope for this species with more lovely little
wars to be fought endlessly until that terrible day comes when
circumstances prevent us from effectively recovering as a species from the
destruction.
The quotes you give have been disputed by some interpreters and if you
can, for example, understand that the 'storm' Ahmadinejad referred to,
can be easily be reinterpreted as something NOT having to do with Iran
attacking and destroying Israel, but that the corruption of Israel and
its Western whoring will be the 'storm' as well as it's constant
friction with its Arab neighbors wearing it down in the 'storm.'
Ahmadinejad thinks Israel is a Zionist bed of lies and hate. That will
also bring about the 'storm' that will end its existence.
Except that there is no lie in the existence of Israël. Only these
murderrers who spend hundreds of billions to undermine the legitimate
Hebrew regime are making up these lies.
This storm is nuclear, unless we nuke his facilities first.
I'm sorry you feel that way, Jeano...because I know it to be total
irresponsiblity on your part to think it. If you cared about life on this
planet, you'd at least be supporting high-level Iran-US talks, and not
wanting to defer them for pre-conditions Bush has set for such talks. He
is an irresponsible, dangerous leader, Jeano...Bush is as dangerous, or
more so, than Ahmadinejad. The US hasn't been attacked by Iran, nor its
security directly threatened, and there is no evidence that Iran has
nuclear weapons. There are many analysts who think Iran is still 2-3 years
away but, at any estimate, it is imperative the US set down with Iran and
engage them diplomatically, not militarily. Anyone who advocates a
military conflagration is being extremist and irresponsible.
You cannot find hardly one statement from Ahmadinejad that has not been
disputed by expert translators that has him saying that Iran will come
down upon Israel with its military and destroy it. There are
suggestions and interpretations, but not clearly agreed-upon
translation -- they are disputed, and not just the words, but the
meaning of the words and terms he uses.
I showed you 4, Why should I continue arguing with you iif you ignore
what I show you and repeat the same lie aas this little ignorant, or spy
you quote. It is a loss of time.
Again, even if the interpretations are correct in your favor, what
politicians say and what they do or are likely to do, historically, are
often two different things. You let your bias in favor of Israel and your
strong belief Nostradamus' prophecies are God's truth color your reality
several shades differently than the rest of us out here who don't
subscribe to such ideas. I see a world that is growing more crowded and
potentially dangerous in the way humans have trouble moving away from the
cycles of self-centered behavior (and other forms of self-defeating
behavior), and a world that could become an ocean of misery and
bloodletting for us unless we basically do one thing -- talk, talk, talk
our differences out, and keep away from major bloody clashes. Sadat and
Begin did just that, and it serves as a hopeful reminder for our times now
and in the future. But, it's more 'exciting' to talk conflict, and it
luridly appeals to many of us. The media knows the psychology, and so do
the leaders. And they exploit it.
Besides, this is recognized by everyone who is into intelligence.
It is not worth losing time over you, you only repeat the same ***** no
matter what the truth is.
You're a troll.
J.
I'm sorry you feel that I am a useless, stupid troll, Jeano. But I do have
the satisfaction in knowing that (1) you're totally wrong in that
assumption, and (2) you're a fringe fanatic hell bent on promoting a
future that serves your self-centered visions...visions of pious
domination, great suffering and death, and, to cap off the insanity of
your dreams --- the return of the loving, caring Jesus. I guess if you've
survived the apocalypse, you can look forward to a 1000 years of the lion
lying down with lamb. Somehow, with your confrontational caustic
egotistical personality, I'd think that future utopia would be like a
living Hell for ya. LOL!
Docrodile ;)~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Lies You Shouldn't Believe About Iran... |
06 Feb 2007 11:58:45 PM |
|
|
"Docrodile" <swampthing@hellsbayou.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
eq8rlq$j18$1@aioe.org...
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:dxRxh.32559$Oa.26396@edtnps82...
"Docrodile" <swampthing@hellsbayou.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
eq3t3i$ft1$1@aioe.org...
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:kqdxh.28892$Oa.28469@edtnps82...
"Docrodile" <swampthing@hellsbayou.net> a écrit dans le message de
news: eq3b08$bon$1@aioe.org...
February 3, 2007 at 15:43:32
Six Lies You Shouldn't Believe About Iran, Especially Since, Hey,
There's People Down Here.
by Rosa Schmidt Azadi
LIE NUMBER 1: President Ahmadinejad "has repeatedly threatened to wipe
Israel off the map."
Not a lie, true, he did say that:
"The real cure for the conflict is elimination of the Zionist regime.
That is the one time she said it happened.
But ALSO said that:
"The way to peace in the Middle East is the destruction of Israel."
*Both* quotes are reported there:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/04/wmid204.xml
And he also said that:
"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation. The
Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one
storm."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/15/wiran15.xml
And also said that:
"So long as Israel exists in the region.there will never be peace and
security in the Middle East. So the resolution of the Holocaust issue
will end in the destruction of Israel."
http://www.roozonline.com/english/015942.shtml
So this women has no clue, probably because the Iranian governement
shows her what they want her to see.
I'm going to remind you of something uncomfortably contradictory to the
hysteria and demonization you'd like to whip up against Iran here.
As you know, Nikita Kruschev used to make some blustery remarks about
getting rid of the capitalist world and the US and its imperialistic
designs, as he often referred to it.
The Ayatollah Khomeini, as you also know, made blustery remarks about
Israel being removed from the Middle East.
The uncomfortable part for you, Jeano, is that what these two previous
leaders threatened never came about and the chief reasons are (1)
propaganda for domestic consumption was a chief motivating factor for
saying such things, and (2) either a mutually assured destruction was an
effective deterrent, or in the case of Khomeini's Iran, Israel was
militarily much more powerful than Iran (and likely possessed an array
of nukes), and was solidly backed by the US's military power. And
Khomeini had to solidify domestic support.
Now, we come to the present day, and we hear Mahmoud blowin' a lot of
steam toward Israel, but is it unlikely Mahmoud will have the support of
the clerics to launch an annihilative war against Israel, or that he and
his nation wouldn't be around but a short time after they launched a
mass-destructive attack, or even a large-scale conventional one.
The problem is that he doesn,t care for that. Rafsanjani is second only
after the all powerful Ayatollah Ali Khamenehi and as such he wields
considerable more power. He has also admitted that several million
Muslims could die in a nuclear war with Israel but states that would be a
small price to pay to get rid of Israel forever. You know that, but you
don't bring it up, why? So you can put forward this little history bit?
If you want to engage me endlessly here about what religious or political
leaders SAY instead of what they DO, then by all means, let's mutually
waste our time together, Jeano. We both know that leaders are full of a
lot of hot air, and they use it fairly effectively on a naive, ignorant,
or hysterical audience...there have been many instances where Muslim and
Jewish leaders have issued bellicose threats to take military action, only
to have that action either greatly diminished in scale, or take the path
of propaganda or negotiations. I'm reminded of Sadat and Begin and their
historic accord, brokered by Carter. It has undoubtedly saved many lives
in the past 27 years or so, and I can well remember how many conservatives
thought it wasn't going to ever work. Liberals thought it could, and
supported it. I did. 'And it was great to see age-old animosities and
suspicions laid to rest between two bitter enemies since the time of
Ramses II. I think the press and politicians, and everyone, should think
more about the Camp David agreement in regards to the present friction
between Iran and the US or between Israel and Iran. Certainly, there are
news reports the Saudis and Iran are trying to work together on Lebanon
and Palestine...and more reports of friendly overtures from other Arab
nations toward Iran. Might we not think more of this, than think of
confrontation, subterfuge of governments, etc.?
Whatever Iran does about Palestine or Lebanon is warmongering, nmuch like
Syria and we have see exactly what they have done not long ago and waht it
brings to these people.
What does simple logic and rationality tell you in this case, Jeano? Not
what your interpretations of Nosty quatrains tell you, or your
biasedness against the Muslim community tells you, or your fawning over
the Jews as if they were a perfect people and had a flawless, God-guided
government...no, Jeano, not any of that irrationality or dreaminess, but
just hard rational common sense in the real world of human survival on
the planet??
There is no logic other that that of the suicide bomber who kills
innocent people. Religious paradise with lots of virgins, except this guy
thinks he speaks with the Madhi who tells them to do this. Don't you know
anything?
Yes, I know about Ahmadinejad's remarks about the 'coming' Mahdi and is
fervent belief in the immediacy of it...but, again, I suggest that what a
politician believes and says, and what he does or is likely to do (with
great consequences against him and his people), are often two different
things in history. I'm not saying that any leader today might not go 'off
his rocker' and seize an opportunistic moment in history to make a radical
move...Bush has done this in Iraq, and the consequences are grave and
getting worse. Ahmadinejad may be lost in the clouds, I don't know. He may
not be thinking rationally enough to prevent such a radical motive to come
to fruition in a tragic way. But, I say that adversaries, such as Egypt
and Israel long ago showed to the world, must set down and talk about
their differences and misunderstandings, their fears, their hate, etc., or
the world forever continues a cycle of violence, as it has of course,
until one day the trajedy of it is way too costly for anyone to pay...the
end of a civilization, or perhaps the end of the mankind. As Kennedy put
it long ago, 'Man must put an end of war, or war will put an end to
mankind." I believe that.
Bush has only applied a resolution and was betrrayed by allies and foes on
the Security Counsel for corruption reason.
But yes, Saddam was attacked because he attacked his neighbors openly, Iran
and Syria are much worse, they do it covertly, the coward way, but they are
as guilty.
There's no doubt in my mind that Iran wants to be a revived major power
in that region, and most of its efforts, militarily and economically,
center on that goal in that region. They have a regional military force
that can extend beyond that area, of course, but it is primarily to
protect and control the Persian Gulf area and most of the Middle Eastern
area. Along with Syria, a close ally, and ties they're forging with
other Arab states, including more overtures toward Saudi Arabia, a
previous 'adversary' of sorts, Iran is clearly embarking on
empire-building. And that bodes ill for Western corporate investment if
they wish to dominate or control, and maximize profits there. Iran is
obviously in the way of Western corporate goals of dominance of the oil
reserves, and to a lesser degree, natural gas and other resources.
With nuclear power, yeah, right.
The alternative is to risk a major war with Iran and some of its allies,
and to exacerbate an already high level of anti-Western terrorism, and
generally cause serious trouble with our oil-dependent economies. One more
lovely little war ain't gonna' make the world a better place to live...if
that were true, all the many wars fought so far would've taken us away
from conflict at this moment...but we face more of the same. Maybe you
want your interpretations of prophecies to be tragically fulfilled for
reasons only you can truly answer, in your soul, in your deepest
thoughts...but I can't see hope for this species with more lovely little
wars to be fought endlessly until that terrible day comes when
circumstances prevent us from effectively recovering as a species from the
destruction.
Nah, Ahamdinejad is hell bent on the destruiction of Isrtael, already spênd
hundreds of billions in making war against it and taking over Iraq, the only
reason he sdeosn,t do it openly is because he deoisnt, have the bomb yet,
but is working frantically on getting it. The US didN,t starrt the war with
Saddam, Saddam did, the US stopped it and would have gone after him, except
the UN promised to the coalition it could be solved, with a conditional
cease fire, if he did stop warmongering, and abided by resolution 687. He
never did and the UN gave him a last chance to abide by it, he didn't abide
by almost all of the clauses, including the WMD clauses. but I am repeating
myself, you know very well this war wasn't started by the US, and the US
implementing the only standing UN resolution at the end of the day, was to
prevent wars not to encourage it.
All you can do is lie about this, and pretend.
The quotes you give have been disputed by some interpreters and if you
can, for example, understand that the 'storm' Ahmadinejad referred to,
can be easily be reinterpreted as something NOT having to do with Iran
attacking and destroying Israel, but that the corruption of Israel and
its Western whoring will be the 'storm' as well as it's constant
friction with its Arab neighbors wearing it down in the 'storm.'
Ahmadinejad thinks Israel is a Zionist bed of lies and hate. That will
also bring about the 'storm' that will end its existence.
Except that there is no lie in the existence of Israël. Only these
murderrers who spend hundreds of billions to undermine the legitimate
Hebrew regime are making up these lies.
This storm is nuclear, unless we nuke his facilities first.
I'm sorry you feel that way, Jeano...because I know it to be total
irresponsiblity on your part to think it. If you cared about life on this
planet, you'd at least be supporting high-level Iran-US talks, and not
wanting to defer them for pre-conditions Bush has set for such talks. He
is an irresponsible, dangerous leader, Jeano...Bush is as dangerous, or
more so, than Ahmadinejad. The US hasn't been attacked by Iran, nor its
security directly threatened, and there is no evidence that Iran has
nuclear weapons. There are many analysts who think Iran is still 2-3 years
away but, at any estimate, it is imperative the US set down with Iran and
engage them diplomatically, not militarily. Anyone who advocates a
military conflagration is being extremist and irresponsible.
UYou doN,t understand what I say. This is not an option. Sorry if you
misunderstood. There is no way the US would use nukes on a country that
hasn't used them before. When I say nuke his facilities, it is destroy them,
with conventional or those low yield bunker busters, not nuke the country.
this is not what I am saying.
Of course, if we let them get them, then we might as well be ready to do so
because it si waht he is waiting to use them on Israel, to have them, adn
then there is justification for that, but as I have shown, they don't care.
There is no other reason why they wouldn't use the fuel given by Europeans
to produce nuclear energy instead of going agaisnt the world. But until the
last minute, of their ultimate first nuclear blast, there is no way we can
preempt a nuclear strike on the country. But to prevent that ultimate
disaster we should destroy his facilities IF high level talks do not work.
Should Bush talk with him before he stops the madness he has going, maybe if
it can make him stop. but these compromises haven't worked with the
Europeans, they can't (much less) work with the US. But yes, it should
happen so that they can démonstrate that they are ready to discuss. But you
know Ahmadinejad, the US is still the big Satan, but he writes to Bush, to
the pope to everyone his crazy stuff. This will be a circus with nothing
real or good coming out of it.
You cannot find hardly one statement from Ahmadinejad that has not been
disputed by expert translators that has him saying that Iran will come
down upon Israel with its military and destroy it. There are suggestions
and interpretations, but not clearly agreed-upon translation -- they are
disputed, and not just the words, but the meaning of the words and terms
he uses.
I showed you ! Why should I continue arguing with you iif you ignore what
I show you and repeat the same lie as this little ignorant, or spy you
quote. It is a loss of time.
Again, even if the interpretations are correct in your favor, what
politicians say and what they do or are likely to do, historically, are
often two different things. You let your bias in favor of Israel and your
strong belief Nostradamus' prophecies are God's truth color your reality
several shades differently than the rest of us out here who don't
subscribe to such ideas. I see a world that is growing more crowded and
potentially dangerous in the way humans have trouble moving away from the
cycles of self-centered behavior (and other forms of self-defeating
behavior), and a world that could become an ocean of misery and
bloodletting for us unless we basically do one thing -- talk, talk, talk
our differences out, and keep away from major bloody clashes. Sadat and
Begin did just that, and it serves as a hopeful reminder for our times now
and in the future. But, it's more 'exciting' to talk conflict, and it
luridly appeals to many of us. The media knows the psychology, and so do
the leaders. And they exploit it.
First what I put forth is a way to brace for the future. The prophecies are
sure to occur, there is no way around that. I doN,t wish that they happen, I
cannot prevent them from happening. I can say waht they say and I do.
But I am talking politics here, I don,t consider the prophecies but the
facts. Iran and Syria are two major sopnpsors of terrorism, they spend
hundreds of billions on that, I have shown you the assesment of those who
are professionals in counter intelligence and have even named tens of
thousands of agents by name, what they have done has cost billions to the
countries they illegally oprerate in this summer. This guy who preside over
Iran is not a victim, he is the warmonger. What Bush tries to prevent is not
something he read in the prophecies. What the second Hitler does is
substantiated. What he wants to do as well.
And the media plays a game indeed and has a tremendous part of the
responsibility in the actual situation in Iraq, because they play with the
truth. If they do the same with the future, it will be only more costly.
This is not journalism, this is propaganda for war, not against it.
Besides, this is recognized by everyone who is into intelligence.
It is not worth losing time over you, you only repeat the same ***** no
matter what the truth is.
You're a troll.
J.
I'm sorry you feel that I am a useless, stupid troll, Jeano. But I do have
the satisfaction in knowing that (1) you're totally wrong in that
assumption, and (2) you're a fringe fanatic hell bent on promoting a
future that serves your self-centered visions...visions of pious
domination, great suffering and death, and, to cap off the insanity of
your dreams --- the return of the loving, caring Jesus. I guess if you've
survived the apocalypse, you can look forward to a 1000 years of the lion
lying down with lamb. Somehow, with your confrontational caustic
egotistical personality, I'd think that future utopia would be like a
living Hell for ya. LOL!
Docrodile ;)~
Except that you are wrong on both count, and that it is absolutely true that
you are here only to fight those who try to address the war-bent fanatics
that will undoubtly be the ones who bring destruction to the world in the
middle term. And trying to find those ignorant or brainwashed enough media
circus clowns who put an anti-US or anti-Israel spin on things is your
obsession, besides being a clown aor bringing on the occasional UFO
*****. You never bring the truth about those who are the agressors. this,
on a prophecy NG, makes you a useless troll.
J.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Werewolfy" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Lies You Shouldn't Believe About Iran... |
06 Feb 2007 04:31:38 AM |
|
|
On Feb 6, 3:11?am, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
"Jean Guernon" <jguer...@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
Gosh.
Only Six?
I bet there are billions really.
Werewolfy
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
