February 11, 2005

With "Us" or with "Them"

Posted by Niki

The foundations being set for a potential attack on Iran—claims about the possession or acquisition of WMDs, the threat to U.S. national security, the marching in of international inspectors and mediators, the foregrounding of dubious claims by "exiled" agitators--are predictably parallel to the case of Iraq, the details of which should be exposed, and probably will be on the pages of this very blog.

These steps towards war are being taken as I am writing now (claims of "routine" updates notwithstanding), and many Iranians living inside and outside of their country are already speaking out loudly in resistance. But we have also become the target of the familiar accusations, the same ones that continue to be hurled against Iraqis who object to the occupation of their country: to be against war is to be for nuclear proliferation, to be against the war is to condone the current regime, to be against the war is to be "Anti-American".

These accusations, though shallow and reductive, nonetheless have a surprising power in silencing and intimidating. After all, which Iranian in post 9/11 U.S.A is not on some level afraid of appearing sympathetic to "terrorists". We who have seen the special registrations and sweeps of Iranians, the surveillance and harassment of West Asian students and activists across U.S. campuses, and numerous daily pressures that go un-named, know that these accusations can stick with heavy penalties.

It is a similar predicament for those Iranians—whether residing in Iran or in diaspora—who reject the current Iranian regime, and may have risked their lives in opposition to it. They find themselves pigeon-holed as defenders of the regime, if not as agents ensuring its survival.

The fact of the matter is that one cannot infer a person's position vis-à-vis the U.S. or Iranian governments based solely on their opposition to a war on Iran and to the devastating cost in human life, destruction, and political turmoil that will surely ensue from it.

These either/or options that are continually forced upon discussions about a war on Iran (e.g. "you are either with the U.S. occupation or with the Iranian regime", "you are either for the war on Iran or against "freedom", etc.), foreclose opportunities for considered political stances: people end up censoring themselves, or worse yet, adopt progressively extremist positions in desperate attempts to be heard.

This blog and many others like it attempt to create the space denied to those of us who refuse the imposed binaries that stifle imaginations and impede the potentials for action. The more of us step outside the boundaries, the less we will find ourselves marginalized.

February 11, 2005 09:08 PM | TrackBack

Before contemplating a strike or invasion the US is working hard on a "velvet", "pink", "orange", or maybe this time "purple" revolution in Iran. It worked in Eastern Europe, but, to me, is very unlikely to work in Iran. I've just posted a few comments about Iran on my blog, as a response to an American friend.

Posted by: Ahmad at February 11, 2005 11:03 PM

I have a few questions for you:
Why do you think the US administration is so much against Iran. Do you think it's because of the nuclear situation in Iran. We heard this week that the North Korean government declared openly that they have nuclear weapons. Why do you think Bush and his parrot Rice are trying so adamantly to conceal this very dangerous situation in the Korean peninsula, considering the fact that Kim Jong Il could be far more dangerous than any mullah in Tehran. Why do you think some Iranians both in Iran and outside Iran are in favor of an American attack: of course for different reasons. How do you think we can avoid this potential threat: whether bolstering the reform movement is the answer, or we should join the "exiled agitators." Why do you think we're in this mess?

Posted by: Jahangir at February 12, 2005 08:26 PM

thankfull of your act
دست شما درد نکنه...من هم قصد داشتم در اولین فرصت درباره جنگ بنویسم...

Posted by: sabokball at February 13, 2005 03:30 AM

The Iranian government utilizes terrorism as a tool to advance its national security interests. It has used terrorism as a tool against the U.S. The U.S. government does not believe the Iranian nuclear program has only peaceful ends. And its hard to believe that a country swimming in oil has a need for a domestic nuclear power industry to fufill power needs. As an Iranian, you are naive if you believe that nuclear technology being developed by Iran is not also being developed for weapons, just as Americans would be niave to believe that our government does not do unsavory things to advance our national interest.

People in the Arab world see us as the great satan, I don't know if they are justified. What I do know is that on 911 it was clearly demonstrated that there are people in this world who will do anything to destroy America and its people. If terrorists had a nuclear weapon, they would walk it into NY and set it off. There is no question about that in the minds of Americans or our government.

The American government has every reason to believe that nuclear weapons technology developed by Iran would be put into the hands of terrorists who would use it against the U.S. That threat is real, and it can't be tolerated. Thats what this is about to Americans. War on Iran is probably not in the offing. Some surgical strikes to take out nuclear facilities, that is likely. But we don't have a choice. There ARE people out there who want to get nukes and set them off in American cities. If you thought the U.S. was going to nuke Iran, what would you do? Whatever you had to.

Posted by: Aaron at February 13, 2005 03:46 AM

The bush administration has taken American Imperialisim to a whole new level. I fervently hope that Iran is not the the next nation on bushs' hit list, but this like dejavu.

The sword rattling, the demands, the "intelligence", the same claims and lies that preceeded the invasion of Iraq.

I and everyone like me being labeled as "America Haters" will be out in the street begging, pleading, and protesting, against this military action being done in our name.

But they chose to ignore us last time too.

Posted by: Greenbean at February 13, 2005 04:16 AM

Again, great site ! I particularly like the photos, I link to them whenever some saber-rattling brute starts calling for "let's take out Iran" !

Posted by: claudedorsel at February 13, 2005 10:08 AM

in response to Aaron,

My congratulations to the American/Western media to have done such a great job in the name of liberty to 'educate' you about the 'realities' of the world. Every single word you say resembles the daily puppet shows in BBC and CNN and Fox News and all the rest.

The sad reality is how you are being brainwashed and that you never ask a single question.

Posted by: MK at February 13, 2005 03:42 PM

We have not forgotten, nor will we forget, Beruit and Khobar. The real issue is not "no war with Iran" but will Iran cease it's war on us. In the past we ignored all that "death to America" stuff. We let the murder of our Marines, on a UN sponsored peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, roll off our backs. We complained loudly about the sponsorship of terrorism directed at us, but took no action.

No sane person wants war. But there is a limit and, by all accounts, we are getting close to it. If you really want no war on Iran then do what you can to prevent the mad mullahs from crossing that line.

Posted by: nur at February 13, 2005 03:54 PM

Aaron: "The Iranian government utilizes terrorism as a tool to advance its national security interests."

And so does United States government with the Mujahedin-e Khalq.

The Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) has been declared a terrorist group by the American State Department, but now the Pentagon is contemplating the infiltration of members of the Iranian rebel group over the Iraq-Iran border.

Posted by: AJ at February 13, 2005 05:08 PM

Dear Nur-

One can say of the iranians that "we" have not forgotten, nor will "we" forget, the overthrow of the democratically elected mossadeq by the CIA in 1953, the support for the murderous regime of the U.S. installed Shah, or the arming and protection of Saddam hossein while he used U.S. chemical weapons on Iranian troops and civilians, the "accidental" shooting down of an Iranian civilian plane in the Persian Gulf, the death and damage caused by the "accidental" mortars fired by U.S. troops into Iranian territories during the illegal invasion of Iraq.

when you talk about iran's war with "you", why don't you also look at the history of U.S. relations with Iran, and why don't you look at the U.S.'s on-going war against the people of the world.

No one on this blog is defending the Iranian regime, but you don't engage the real arguments here because you can't fight them with your one-dimensional view of the world.

Posted by: N at February 13, 2005 06:45 PM

There are many people both in Iran and outside Iran who are in favour of an American Invasion. Of course for some of us who have witnessed the destruction of war and invasion (on TV), this mentality seems to be illogical, but one can't escape the fact. I think nur has a point. We cannot go on forever and say "Marg bar Amrika" ("Death to America") and avoid the consequences. Iranian government should face the reality.
Death to America and all this useless rhetoric cannot go on forever. It should stop and it should stop now. If the Mullahs want to survive, they have to act fast. They're losing their powerbase among people and cannot withstand an invasion. The question is whether Iranians want this regime to survive?

Posted by: Jahangir at February 13, 2005 07:42 PM

First, I am libertarian; an as such I am against use of initial of force. Use of initial force is immoral.
Second, I believe, what is immoral for an individual is also immoral for group of individuals (i.e. government).
Having said this I have to support war on Islam (while respecting individuals under Islam).
Islam used uses and will use initial force. It called me an enemy. It is out of “no initial force rule”. Use of force in retaliation and self defense is as moral as not using initial force against those who did not use initial force against people who do not use such.
Bellow part of prologue to “Prophet of Doom” by Craig Winn:

“I have been made victorious with terror.”

Suppose you stumbled upon the Constitution of an organization that was terrorizing the world. Would you ignore such a document, or would you read it? Suppose you discovered that this Constitution’s most prominent themes were pain and punishment, thievery and violence, intolerance and war. If the regime’s charter ordered its devotees to kill, plunder, and terrorize, would you sound an alarm?
What if this Constitution was supported by a manifesto that contained the only authorized biography of the regime’s founder, and the first devotees of this doctrine, its co-founders, said that their leader was a sexual predator, a pirate, and a terrorist? If you found such evidence, what would you do with it? What if this leader motivated his mercenaries to murder and mayhem by allowing them to keep what they had stolen in the name of the cause—their victim’s homes, businesses, money—even their women and children?
All right, no more hypotheticals. I’m going to share some passages from this Constitution—from the covenant of the world’s largest and most violent organization. I have changed the names to disguise the source without altering the message. “Your leader has sent you from your homes to fight for the cause. Your leader wished to confirm the truth by his words: wipe those who disagree with us out to the last. We shall terrorize everyone who is unlike us! So smite them on their necks and every joint, and incapacitate them, for they are opposed to our doctrine and our leader. Whosoever opposes our doctrine and our leader should know that we are severe in retribution. And know that one-fifth of what you acquire as booty in war is for our great leader (the rest is for you). The use of such spoils is lawful and good.”
This popular and misunderstood Constitution says: “Fight them till all opposition ends and only our doctrine rules. If you meet anyone who disagrees with us in battle, inflict on them such a defeat as would be a lesson for those who come after them, that they may be warned. Slaughter those who disagree with us wherever you find them. Lie in wait for them. They are specimens of foolishness. Punish them so that our superior dogma and leader can put them to shame. If you apprehend treachery from a people with whom we have a treaty, retaliate by breaking it off. Those who do not think like us should know that they cannot bypass our doctrine. Surely they cannot get away. Fight them until they pay a heavy tax in submission to us; how perverse are they. Our leader and his doctrine will damn them. For anyone who offends our leader or opposes our doctrine will receive a painful punishment. We will burn them alive. So prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster, that you may strike terror in the enemies of our cause!”
This Constitution is genuine, and millions follow its message. Exposing it —understanding it—might actually save you from the wrath it inspires. The covenant goes on to say: “Our great leader urged all who agree with us to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination, you will vanquish two hundred; and if there are a hundred, then you will vanquish a thousand of our enemy, for they are a people devoid of understanding. Our great leader drove your enemy back in fury. He motivated our side in battle. He made their citizens flee from their homes and he terrorized them so that you killed some and made many captive. Our great leader made you inherit their lands, homes, and wealth, and gave you a country you had not traversed before.”
This sounds like a terrorist manifesto—a covenant for war and genocide. Does anything this immoral, this out-of-touch with human decency, actually exist? If it did, and if it were this blatant, you’d expect to see its followers amassing their weaponry. You’d expect them to rise up and terrorize the world. Not only would they feel it was their duty to kill, you’d expect their fallen assassins to be immortalized—hailed as martyrs and paraded down crowded streets, banners waving, tears flowing, guns blazing, with angry diatribes spewing from hate-filled faces. You’d expect them to wage war under the guise of doctrinal supremacy, wouldn’t you? And if there were such people, our journalists and politicians would have ferreted them out, exposed them, and protected us. Right?
Wrong! With the exception of changing the names of the perpetrators and their victims, what you read is from the actual Constitution of an enormous, rapidly growing, extremely well funded, and horrendously violent worldwide cult. And as bad as that sounds, it gets worse in context. The manifesto proudly proclaims that unarmed civilians were annihilated by armed gangs. Men were decapitated on the orders of the dogma’s founder. Thousands of children were sold into slavery. Women were raped—the leader himself participating. Townships were plundered, businesses were looted, and productive assets were destroyed. The villains slept in their victims’ beds, abusing their wives and daughters. And each bloody affair was meticulously recorded by the founder’s companions and later chronicled by the regime’s most esteemed clerics.
It’s time to turn the page. Let’s look at what the founder’s companions had to say about their leader in his manifesto. Once again, I will change the names but nothing else. “Kill them, for he who kills them will get a great reward. Our great leader said, ‘Our doctrine assigns for a person who participates in battles in our cause to be rewarded with booty if he survives, or he will be admitted into the Hall of Heroes if he is killed in the battle as a martyr. Had I not found it difficult for my followers to do without me I would have remained in army units fighting great battles and would have loved to have been martyred for the cause.’”
The regime’s founder is quoted in the doctrine’s anti-Semitic manifesto saying, “Issue orders to kill every Jew in the country.” He was asked, “What is the best deed?” by one of his devotees. The dictator replied, “To believe in me and our doctrine.” “What is the next best deed?” the devotee queried. “To fight on behalf of our cause,” he answered. At the end of one such conflict, one of the regime’s lieutenants told his commander, “We have conquered another nation. The captives and the booty have all been collected. Now, my leader, may I take a slave girl from among the prisoners?” “Take any one you like,” the warlord replied, raping one himself. Ever mindful of his duty, this regime’s leader proclaimed, “Embrace our doctrine first and then fight.” Followed by, “I have been made victorious with terror!”
You have stumbled upon the Constitution of the world’s largest nation—and it’s not China or Russia. You’ve just heard the words of its founding father, and he’s not Lenin, Mao, or Hitler. And today, this doctrine’s adherents are doing what their founder and Constitution ordered: fighting, ravaging civilians, stealing the world’s possessions, and using them to terrorize.
Since it’s happening according to plan, shouldn’t we muster the courage to expose it—to speak out against it? Or should we remain silent for fear of offending them? The answer is obvious. Or is it? What if the names I substituted were Allah, Muhammad, and Islam? What if it’s a “religion?”
This “Constitution” is the Qur’an. The “manifesto” is the Islamic Hadith. The citizens of this nation are Muslims. They’re doing what they were ordered to do. They left their homes to fight infidels; they stole our planes, ravaged our economy, and slaughtered innocents in the name of Allah. They even confessed to the crime. Yet not a single national spokesperson or politician has had the courage to hold Islam accountable.

Posted by: John Galt at February 13, 2005 08:25 PM

I read many of the comments and I enjoyed knowing about different viewpoints and analyses.
But, let's see if iraq's war was really bad for the US? The US while being the only superpower, is still a country with national interests. It is not obliged to consider morality. I don't see the reason why a country which is "stronger" should stop invading the rest of the world because of some bogus reasons like humanity or morality. My point is that: assuming the US has the power to defeat iran with minimal fatalities and it (iran) turns out to be a success and an ally after the war, why shuldn't the US go for that? are we now begging them not to attack us?! This is a fundamental question. I am a proud Iranian, no mistakes please!

Posted by: Mohsen at February 13, 2005 09:00 PM

The reason the Bush Administration is getting all worked up about Iran is purely because of all that PNAC stuff about wanting to have some kind of leverage in the Middle East. There is absolutely no reason to attack Iran -- North Korea has been a bigger threat since before the atrocious attacks on Iraq (or the attacks of 9/11) ever happened.

Terrorism is one thing -- one nation attacking another is another thing. If the US weren't such a redneck bully on the world stage, there would be greater incentive for all nations to combat terrorism, and for states with mostly Muslim populations to discourage extremism. As it is, we are approaching what amounts to Armageddon , between fundamentalist Christian Zionist crazies in the US (who back Bush's insanity,) Sharon who is a total psychopath, and radical ISlamic Jihadists, and saner moderates of all faiths are left in the dust.

Iran is acquiring nuclear power to defend itself -- wouldn't you, seeing how the US has behaved? Sad irony that a nation of gun nuts mewling about the right to bear arms every two seconds refuses to allow anyone else (oops -- except Israel?????) the capability to defend themselves against aggressive initial uses of force.

Posted by: LilletLangtry at February 14, 2005 01:11 AM

The finite resources of hydrocarbons are rapidly running out, while the debate rages on about the trivia forwarded by the con artists running the show in US. This very day Russian SS-27 Topol-M has rendered the celebrated missile defence shield obsolete. Hence Amerikkka the out of reach and well defended fortress is just another one of those Hollywood stories.

The current climate of fear expressed through the servile, and acquiescent attitudes of the immigrants. That are reinforced through the constant rants of aliens, that is illegal or otherwise. These have brought about the osmosis of racist attitudes, to those foreign nationals who attempt to assimilate this new climate with a view to gaining acceptance within the larger society.

Hence the almost pitiful array of comments that could only be attributed to addled minds of those stupefied to the extent of losing their identity, and reasoning faculties.

The current policies of smash and grab of the hydrocarbon reserves in a bid to project and consolidate the US supremacy in to the future, may have fans in UK US, however the rest of the world is getting ready to defend theirs and their own. Therefore the question is no longer a regional and limited conflict but a full and final conflict. Although this school of thought has somehow found few buyers among the elite, and their power base. However as ever Junkers principle holds, the bumblebee flies because it never studied aerodynamics! In other words regardless of the boasts of general Abizaid in the final analysis US cannot fight in a multi frontal theater, and hope to win, regardless of the optimism of PANC charlatans and their pontifications.

However with respect to Iran currently that country is engaged in hedging her future by introduction of means of nuclear power generation. Since the revenues from hydrocarbon resources by default become finite too, and is in line with other countries aspirations such as Norway, and any other economically sane political system too.

The fact is as professor John Lovelock explores the current methods of power generation ought to be converted to nuclear in an attempt to combat and perhaps delay the on set of climate change, and he should know since he has been exploring alternative energy for 2 decades now, and is considered one of the leading environmentalists! Further, he maintains building reactors is a heavy duty undertaking that takes 10 to 12 years to complete, and copious amounts of funds too. So everyone should start building these now!

In addition introduction of nuclear technology and its offshoots in effect bring any would be owner country into new areas of economic activities that otherwise they could not participate in.

So far Iran has been subject to calumny of her detractors, be it the usual dissidents who find listener among the ranks of the enemy or those whose soul preoccupation is to stage a smash and grab operation liberating her resources that rightfully they see as theirs!

For those traitors who find solace among the enemy I have nothing but sheer contempt.

As for those misguided souls whom are falling for all the hullabaloo of the right with respect to a country swimming on oil, etc. This false premise is akin to accusing anyone wishing to own a private car of intent to curb crawl or drive while under the influence, both illegal and proceed to imprison the individual for the crimes that he or she is about to commit. Since we all know with all the buses and taxis kicking around there is no need for anyone to own car!!

Therefore the automatic assumption that there are nuclear weapons to be produced are erroneous, and false. Further considering the NPT that I am sure not many of you have bothered to read, finds access to nuclear technology and nuclear fuel cycle an inalienable right of all of its signatories. Therefore it is Iran's right and she can exercise her right it as she may wish. Further the tents of NPT are so that through vigorous inspection regimes IAEA can maintain monitoring the members' activities discouraging them form cheating. Remember these people are not any laymen they are trained and qualified leading members of the international nuclear sciences community. Further the possible loop holes have been tightened up through the introduction of the part two of the treaty that further restricts the activities of the signatories with respect to development of nuclear weapons.

However this in not enough in the eyes of the detractors, since it does not suit their agenda, and the mess that we find ourselves in. Missing from the debate is also the fact Israel possessing some 400 nuclear war heads who is not even a signatory to NPT is left alone, while US banishing IAEA from her soil is busy downsizing these weapons for yields of 5 megatons, which is clearly indicative of her aggressive stance being projected into the future too!

Posted by: NUM at February 14, 2005 02:47 AM

Written by Mohsen

Good? How? What the benefits coming American way out of it?
Mohsen continues:

Yes that is true. But I feel like this “national interest” is understood somewhat differently who is talking. America is the nation of nations. National interest means foremost safety from……terrorists’ attacks.
With the next statement of Mohsen is impossible agree:

I understand that to the contrary. It is obligated to consider morality and when is not doing it opposition is forming. America (by its Constitution) is not Democracy. It is Republic. Also nation is assembled by Sovereign Citizens – not the subjects. In such morality of individual should be implemented in the actions of the nation.
From the post of Mohsen further:

I see your problem. Your morality is this of Muhammad and other Arab tribes of VII century. In today’s understanding of morality your position on respecting individual rights is pretty much outdated. And looking what you write further:

I do not think you consider geographical divisions as countries. Nor any Muslim does. At present time I do not see anything good after removing Sadam Hussain. Secular country is failing in to Islamic hands. Schools will stop teaching reading, writing and math – instead they will teach Qur’an. Door shut before for Islamist now open….
There will be questionable ally. Qur’an requires lying, breaking covenants, waiting patiently and building power stealthily. As soon as Islam is strong “slaughter of all infidels”. It is the only ideology on the world requiring fighting with friends of Muslims. Muslim is not allowed to make friends with infidels. Indeed why USA would go for that (friendship with Islamic Iraq)? Surely the reason is…. But this one you presented.
But LilletLangtry is also wrong, if not even more

I do not think so. What leverage? DO NOT GET CONFUSED. There is only one nation of Islam and many small other nations (countries).
Besides North Korea as crazy as it is, could be deterred. Terrorist not. And what terrorist organization is supported by Iran? Hezbollah?
In fact Iraq was paying for exploding bombs how much? $20K? A piece?

There is much more reason to attack first Iran than North Korea.

Dou you suggest that in IIWW America was better to fight “kamikadzeizm”? Terrorism is not enemy. It is just the symptom. Islam is enemy. Read Qur’an and collections of Sunnas (especially most respected in Islam, like Bukhari and Muslim). This is not the problem of now. It was the problem since 1400 years. And keep in mind that Muhammad besides been a pedophile (which is not concern of ours her) was the first terrorist – Allah requires kill infidels till they convert or will pay ransom.

Perhaps you should think thing more through. Look at Great Britain, or Germany, or Holland, or France (Muslims problems). Do not you see these countries are almost done for? Only America is standing against on the way of Islam. That’s why is seen as Great Satan. And America can NOT get any help – there is nobody who could help. Europe hates USA? And Islamists also? Too bad. Get used to. I do not know for sure, if Bush knows what he is doing. But If I was in his place I would finish terrorism creating, Islamofascizm once and for all.

Here I have to agree with you. Big mess is coming. But your analyses of religious pervasions are unfortunately wrong. Christians are divided in their opinions for 3 or 4 opposing groups. Not all know what Islam is staying for. But as for moderates you’re right again. It will take maybe another Patriot act to wake grass roots organizations in the purpose to attempt strengthening America and bring back Constitution in to life. Of course what I call moderates and what you call by this word, are entirely different things.

No, this power would go to 1400 years old jihad.

Read about Islam and come back to discuss.
Taking about using initial force against Islamic country – Are you kidding? Muslims are obligated to USE INITIAL FORCE against those who are not Muslim. Look history of Spain and of Europe. Check about Jefferson’s war against pirates in 1803. I do not believe you are naïve. You just did not have time to read.

Posted by: John Galt at February 14, 2005 02:58 AM


I did not intend to talk about Islam and I don't claim I know it completely. But from your comment it seems like you encourage a war against Islam which is out of our discussion and impractical. You also write quite inorganized and hard to follow: mixing up irrelevant things too often. But thanks for your attention to my comment. That's all I can say now.

But my question is still open and -to me- unanswered: How should we be aksing America not to attack us? What if it is inline with the US national interests?

Posted by: Mohsen at February 14, 2005 05:25 PM

"Us and them".
It is the cornerstone of fascism. Since the beginning, fascism depends upon an external enemy to maintain power. Creating "us against them" is an integral part of getting people to tolerate government controls. When a common enemy threatens all of society, women forget their desire to achieve equality and men forget their desire to pursue reforms. If none exists, fascism will always find a way to create an external enemy. It is no coincidence that the region with the most tyranical and oppressive governments in the world is also the region most ravaged by war. Fascists need enemies in order to survive.

Many of the posters here suffer from misconceptions that have been created for the benefit of the state. Misconceptions that create enemies where none exist. Misconceptions to justify oppression and give the state even greater powers. It is propaganda that is designed to help the state retain its control over her people.

Quite simply, the US is at war with fascism. Not Islam. Not Arab culture. Not oil. Not imperlialism. Fascism. On 9/11 fascism declared war on the US and the US responded by declaring war on fascism. If you live in a fascist state, then the US seeks to topple your government and replace it with a democratically chosen one. If you do not live in a fascist state, then you have nothing to fear. It is not a question of if the US will topple a fascist government, it is a question of how and when. If you live in a fascist state, then your best way to avoid war with the US is to hold open elections. If your governement is already a servant of her people, then you have nothing to fear.

It is propaganda that has led you to believe otherwise. The US is at war with fascism. Not you. Not your religion. Not your country. Not your culture. Facism. Whether it be Islamo-fascism like Afghanistan and Al-Queda or baathist fascism like Saddam. Nothing more and nothing less. As of 9/11, the US declared war on fascism. Iran is a semi-fascist state and therefore remains at semi-war with the US. If the reformists come to power and the grip of fascism is broken, then the state of semi-war will cease to exist.

Posted by: anonymous at February 14, 2005 07:56 PM

Dear anonymous,

I live in a semi-fascist state. It is called America. When does America declare war on itself?

Posted by: anti-fascist at February 14, 2005 08:25 PM

That sounds nice if you are oppossed to the existing government in the US. However, it fails miserably to pass the reality test. The US government is constitutionally required to replaces all leaders every four years. Even if a candidate runs unoppossed, his ability to maintain power is usually subject to term limits. The only portion of the US government that could become fascist is the supreme court. The Iranian governemnt is almost identical to the US government in its organizational hierarchy. The difference is that a loophole exists that allows a single individual to exists in perpituity by appointing a supreme council of his choosing.

With the simple closure of that loophole, the semi-fascist state of Iran would cease to exist. There would no longer be a individual or group who could manipulate the government in order to maintain permanent power. As we all know absolute power will eventually corrupt any human being. Even if the corruption is simply to think that he knows what the people want more than the people themselves.

You shame yourself with ignorance when you make such statements.

Posted by: a non nemous at February 14, 2005 08:53 PM

What a load of horse poky semi fascist state, and loop hole!!

US is the de facto terrorist state, and anyone who says otherwise, are either banging on about their Zionist allegiance, and or have been lobotomised by Foxaganda.

So far as 9/11 or to be more precise Riechstag Fire MkII is concerned, go get educated!

All the hooey about outposts of tyranny, or more to the point Lebensraum, is just a front to steal all the oil that can be stolen. Trouble is others on the block see it differently, as it was shown in Darfur, all the piss and wind and talk of genocide, was quietly dropped, since the Russo Chinese consortium was not another one of the little old ladies to be mugged easily.

Which brings us back, the last time round Poland kicked off the shooting match, seems history never repeats itself, so this time round it is Iran that will send the balloon up!!



Posted by: NUM at February 14, 2005 11:22 PM

If the US is what you say they are, then please answer following:

Why did they give Afghanistan back to the people?

Why are they trying to do the same thing in Iraq?

If the goal was global domination, then why hasn't the US advanced their weapons since 1960's? They clearly have the capability to place weapons in orbit and prevent any other nation from entering space. If they did so, they could assinate anyone, anytime, anywhere. Why don't they do it?

The technical knowledge to proceed with nuclear weapons that kill people without harming buildings has existed since 1970's. Clearly, this would be an excellent weapon for global domination. Why did the US stop the development of this neutron bomb weapon?

Why would they invade Iraq for oil? The Saudis were so afraid of Saddam that they would give America all the oil she asked for in return for protection. Toppling Saddam removed the chains of enslavement from Saudi who has the most and best oil in the Gulf.

Posted by: John Doe at February 14, 2005 11:59 PM


being a firm believer in the chimney sweep principle that holds, never get into friendship/fight with a chimney sweep. However, taking a chance just this once, the following could perhaps address the questions set:

If US so far as moved a muscle in 1970s USSR would have hit back with devetating results!

Afghanistan or to be more precise this incarnate Narcostate, ruled by a UNOCAL employee was brought into the mess that she is in through the unstinting US efforts, whom promoted the rise of Taliban, in a bid to kick out the Russians, since US could ill afford a direct confrontation with USSR.

The vote rigging in Iraq, along with some 12 military bases being built at this current time somehow do not constitute handing Iraq back to Iraqis.

The contrived notions of Saddam attacking Kuwait and going on to attacking Saudi were for the benefit of extricating US personnel from Saudi, as well as liberating the oodles of money out of Saudis.

These facts are well documented, April Glaspie's testimonies remain there for everyone's benefit!


The naivety on display could be attributed to either innocence or malice. In case of the former it could be said innocence is akin to a dumb leper having lost his bell moves from village to village meaning no harm to anyone. In case of the latter Chimney Sweep principle holds!

Posted by: NUM at February 15, 2005 01:15 AM

You are intractably indoctrinated into a school of thought. The future will not be kind to you. Yhe evidence is clearly distributed throughout your posts. Ranging from the assumptions that America did not develop weapons because it feared a bankrupt Russia - a country that it was helping to bail out of financial ruin - to the assumption that the Iraqi elections were rigged. I feel sorry for you. You are clinging to yesterday and denying yourself the opportunity that tommorrow holds. Human society can not stand still. It either evolves forward or dies from decay. Clinging to a notion of false utopia built upon an idealized model of past societies will only lead to stagnation and poverty. The world will march forward with or without the mideast.

Iraq will soon overshadow Iran. The people of Mesopotamia realize that they have been given control of their destiny. Iran seized control of theirs in the revolution but squandered it by implementing an outdated social contract between its people and its government. Another opportunity will soon arise. I hope you have the wisdom not to repeat the mistakes of your father. As Iraq moves forward into the global community it will heavily influence Iran. The moral high ground of your mullahs will be eroded by sholars from Najaf and support of their people will be diminished by returning pilgrims. As a member of the global community, with pre-requisite transparency, free media, and open elections ... Iraq will enjoy free trade and full access to western technology, finance, education, health care, and finance. By Iraqi standards, the Iranians are a wealthy people who enjoy a life of prosperity. Soon the tables will turn and the Omaree Shia will see that they have followed a wrong path. It would be wise not to sow the seeds of your own destruction but instead to harvest the fruits of opportunity.

It is your country. It is your future. The path of hatred and fear makes you violent and defensive. Chose carefully the seeds you sow as the fruit they bear will be yours to eat.

Posted by: JoeDoe at February 15, 2005 02:23 AM

this Doe must be a marketing guy from the PNAC, every sentence sounds like a tv ad, must be some kind of sales rep, selling "democracy" to the fascist world... the fact that only americans bought the wmd blatant lies about iraq shows how superior their understanding
even those who follow you do just for reverence to the only superpower, nobody believes your bogus claims but you

Posted by: Roushan at February 15, 2005 03:08 PM

Just wanted to say what Roushan said!
I am still surprised how some people can believe the polititioans can "be nice" and "do good".. or a country be a resquer of "democracy" etc. Note what Bush was read (and will be read next week, a second chance): "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." And that's all.
Do not forget, the president of the united states has not taken the oath to provide people of Iraq prosperity. If he does, he is a betrayer. Tax money and the resources of the united states are not to be spend for Iraqis or Afghanies, unless there's a benefit for the US. No good polititian can be a "good person" while at work. It is the matter of interests. Tiday a "controlled" democracy is inline with the US government's interests. Yesterday, a kingdom. Tomorrow? Who knows.

Posted by: Mohsen at February 15, 2005 03:45 PM

There is no need to "sell" anything. The only real needs the US has in the mideast are three-fold. None of them relate to "selling" anything.

First, it is for an Iraqi government to be formed by majority concensus and to become strong enough to defend itself so that US troops can go home. War is expensive and the US would rather spend her money on herself.

Second, the US doesn't really need mid-east oil. Mid-east oil only accounts for 23% (or something like that) of her oil supply. However, the US needs the global economy and the global economy needs stable sources of energy. As such, the US needs a stable mideast - even if that means sometimes tolerating regimes that violate human rights.

Third, the US needs to delay Iranian nuclear ambitions for 5-10 years. The hardliners days are drawing to a close. Iran has a wonderful constitution and the second best government in the mid-east. It will soon be third best behind Iraq. As Iraq flourishes the supreme council will be forced to adapt. History has shown that the most dangerous rulers are ones who feel that their power is threatened. The US simply needs to make sure that these rulers (aka mullahs) are not in possession of nuclear weapons when they start to lose their grip on power.

The rhetoric about expanding imperialism, seizing the oil, installing puppet regimes, etc. etc. is just that - rhetoric.

Posted by: Average Joe at February 15, 2005 04:01 PM

"this Doe must be a marketing guy from the PNAC, every sentence sounds like a tv ad, must be some kind of sales rep, selling "democracy" to the fascist world... the fact that only americans bought the wmd blatant lies about iraq shows how superior their understanding
even those who follow you do just for reverence to the only superpower, nobody believes your bogus claims but you"

The Saudis believed Saddam had WMD. Enough so that they would beg for US bases to stay and they would pump any amount of oil in return for protection from Saddam. If Saddam could fool the Saudis, then why is it such a surprise that he could fool the west as well?

But that's all moot. We know that WMD was only one of many goals. The biggest goal was to try a social experiment within Arab society that, if successful, would lead to an end of terrorist groups. The experiment? To give a mideast nation the chance to choose whichever or whatever government they want. To see if the Arab people truly want these freedoms and rights or if what they truly want is to be subjugated.

It is not easy living in a democracy. You have to make your own decisions and you have to accept the responsibility of the choices you make. You could end up homeless and starving if you make bad choices - but ... you'll know that it was your choices that put you there. You can't always get your way because the will of the people is more important than the will of an individual. If you do not agree with them, your only recourse is discussion and protest. If you are persuasive enough then you might gain followers and lead a majority. Until then, you must abide by the contract between government and people. There are wrongs that can't be righted because 50.1% of the people want the wrongs to continue. There is fear of saying things that are "politically incorrect" because it will alienate others and harm the process (of reaching concensus). On and on the list goes. Democracy is work. Citizens within a democracy have to be willing to shoulder the burden.

Frankly, there are a lot of people throughout the world that did not think Arabs were capable of shouldering that burden. There are many who thought that Arab society was to weak minded to accept responsibility for deciding their own future. They said that Arabs know no other way than to fight. They would say that the Arab way is to kill all enemies and the last man left alive is the one with the best idea. They were proven wrong by purple fingers.

Posted by: joe at February 15, 2005 04:33 PM

nice experiments you do at the expense of other countries, joe. i know democracy is hard, i live in a country where they sent troops in iraq despite 90% of the people were against. so much for democracy.
when you talk about the so-called west, you are just talking about u.s. because remember, in europe people want nothing to do with your "experiments". you are just too self-centred and feel to superior to notice

Posted by: Roushan at February 15, 2005 04:59 PM

If Europe had been attacked on 9/11, they would have undertaken more than social change. Europe does not respond to agression with grace. Throughout Europe's history, military action is followed by conquest and colonization. From the Romans through the crusades with conquistadors and Napoleanic armies ... including Dutch, British, Spanish, and French Empires ... with a pair of world wars and a soviet bloc. Europe does not give land back to the people who live there.

It was by America's grace that Western Europe remained free while Eastern Europe sufferred under soviet rule. You have no appreciation of history to live in a society that remained free because of American military might and then say that America seeks to subjugate the mideast. Surely it was within your lifetime that the Berlin wall came down and surely you know the history of how and why that wall existed and surely you know the history of how and why West Germany was free and East germany was not.

But despite all the evidence, you prefer to buy the rhetoric and live in fear of a nation more powerful than yours. It is not America that Europe fears. It is America angering the islamo-fascists that live amoung you. Your fear is not for humanity. Your fear is that 9/11 might come to your country. Like France in 1930, you would prefer to let sleeping dogs lie. You should be more honest with yourself. Instead of projecting false rhetoric towards America, you should live up to your fears and face them directly. It is the only way that they will be resolved.

Posted by: Joe at February 15, 2005 06:38 PM

you just can't avoid projecting false rhetoric towards Europe and we've heard this propaganda far too much about how scared we are (unlike you brave americans), our problems at present are more in the area of economy, you have to understand (I know, useless...) that it's not all the "western" world that is so obsessed with terrorism & the like, and I don't fear any islamo-fascist.
We don't want to let no sleeping dog lie, you have woken every sleeping dog & every sleeping anything in the world with your "experiments" and more you have transformed anything that doesn't stand by your plans into a non-sleeping & angry dog. In fact I think US is the real dog, a big fat dog who wants to secure lots of meat for himself. Crazy osama helped to wake up the big dog and now it's lunch time and the "rogue" countries are the lunch. those that are not too big to swallow.

Posted by: Roushan at February 15, 2005 08:40 PM

You may not be afraid of the islamo-fascists, but your governments certainly are. They are more than aware of the population trends of the European continent since the 1940's and statistitical incidence of hate crimes.

But, to be bluntly Amero-centric. The US was attacked on 9/11. The first response is to cut off the head of the serpent and prevent it from planning further attacks. Afghanistan. The second major operation is to eliminate the breeding grounds. That would be the mideast. One option was military conquest no matter how brutal. It would have been relatively easy to "sterilize" the region and there were some within the US who thought the best solution was to erase the Arab gene pool. Fortunately, nobody listened to them. Instead, the prevailing conclusion was that radicals existed because they had no other outlet for political or social change. Empowering the people to control their own destiny was the obvious solution and "democratizing" Iraq was the path with the highest probability of success.

You can whine and object all you want. But let us be blunt. The US could, if it wished, wipe out the entire Arab population by either rendering them incapable of having children, by blowing them up, or by releasing sickness upon them. Chances are that it would be infertility or sickness since the antidote could be easily given to our allies. If the pace of terrorist attacks continued unabated, then the day was coming where they would acquire and release nuclear weapons. Upon that day, the US would show no restraint. Democratizing Iraq is the best of many bad options. It is the path most likely to lead away from apocolypse. If the mid-east does not stop breeding terrorists, then it terrorist sons will eventually commit an unforgiveable act.

Posted by: joe at February 15, 2005 09:32 PM

Fellow bloggers,

We have a malicious, vindictive, and subhuman chimney sweep before us all, as the copious postings, or to be precise sermons, devoid of any content, and long on absurdities stand as witness. A stream of differing names, however the content, and the style remaining a constant, this subhuman chimney sweep has disrupted the free flow of the information, and free exchange of our measured thoughts.

This attempt clearly is manifest weakness of the warmongers, whom find the total immersion around the clock Foxaganda undermined, and deem necessary to reinforce the same garbage, by endless repetitions, through deployment of these paid stooges.


"I'm a bit curious about the Leadership Institute's Internet activism workshop that claims it can teach its students the ropes of "guerilla Internet activism." I'll overlook the typo of the word "guerrilla" because I'm more interested in knowing the definition of guerrilla Internet activism. The term "guerrilla" conjures up notions of warfare, yet I'm not quite sure why a tax-exempt, non-profit organization would be doing that"

Therefore engaging in any kind of transaction with these cretins in effect is a waste of processor time, and worst still, waste of the time that could be spent on investigation and constructive dialogue. Therefore the dog poo principles must be observed, this principle holds if you step in dog crap, you never engage in a debate with the dog that left there, do you? The animal knows no better, since animal does what animals do.

Best would be to step over the dog poo and carry on to your destination, in other words ignore the subhuman paid stooge's posts, and get on with some serious and intelligent debate!

Posted by: NUM at February 15, 2005 11:15 PM

So why doesn't this chimney sweep cut to the bottom line?

Iran does not and will not acquire nuclear weapon technology without assistance from Europe, Soviet, or Asian countries. The war of rhetoric is an impediment that prevents other nations from assisting Iran. It will not stop.

Meanwhile, expect the Iranian government to continue playing cat & mouse with UN inspectors. As Saddam proved, uncertainty breeds fear. And a shrewd regime can turn fear into power.

So get used to it. The Mullahs must keep up with their rhetoric in order to maintain the aura of doubt and the rest of the world must look threatening in order to protect the global economy.

Five years from now, you will still be deliberating about the impending invasion of Iran. Ten years from now, the Omaree will have lost their grip on power and Iran will fear no one.

Posted by: joe at February 16, 2005 02:24 AM

When has Iran done anything to the US in recent years? How many hijackers of the 911 attacks were Iranian? Why should the US be allowed to have nuclear weapons when no other country is? Isn't that gangsta style? As far as proliferation is concerned the US has given its nuclear technology to more countries than any other in this world. So why shouldn't the US be disarmed? Who gave saddam those wmd's? Who gave Israel its nuclear weapons? Who in turn gave that technology to India. It seems to me that if any country other than the US has nuclear weapons they must be terrorists. Why dont these dubya groupies ralize that Iran has a lot of oil just like Iraq and thats what dubya is after, but it wont be easy taking over Iran. Watch and see how the US alienates themselves from the rest of the world

Posted by: thetruth at February 16, 2005 11:02 PM

"When has Iran done anything to the US in recent years? How many hijackers of the 911 attacks were Iranian? Why should the US be allowed to have nuclear weapons when no other country is? Isn't that gangsta style? As far as proliferation is concerned the US has given its nuclear technology to more countries than any other in this world. So why shouldn't the US be disarmed?"

What is learned can not be unlearned. The US and Russia have both scaled back and continue to work towards lessening their arsenals. Neither has done anything to push the danger forward since the 1960's. Proliferation is about stopping the spread of the disease wheras disarmament is about scaling back in measured steps. You seem to have the two confused.

"Who gave saddam those wmd's?"
Actually, most of the technology was bought by Saddam from German companies. It's a matter of record.

"Who gave Israel its nuclear weapons?"
Actually it was the Jews who gave nuclear technology to the US in the later stages of WWII. Nazi Germany was pursuing nuclear bombs and was projected to have them late 1945 to 1946. The scientists who fled to the US from Nazi Germany were the ones who developed it. BTW - it is widely assumed that Israel has nuclear weapons simply because they had the knowledge. Many of Hitler's leading scientist on his nuclear projects were Jews who subsequently migrated to Israel. But in reality, there is no proof and no one is absolutely sure that israel posseses WMD. (you aren't very well informed, are you?)

"Who in turn gave that technology to India."
Can't say. It seems unlikely that Israel would give nuclear technology to India and risk tipping their hand. By giving technology to India, it would be possible for the rest of the world to know the exact extent of their expertise. It would have been a dumb move on Israel's part. I may not like Israel any further than I can spit, but they rarely make dumb moves.

"It seems to me that if any country other than the US has nuclear weapons they must be terrorists."

You have intertwined a number of unrelated subjects, made a false assumption or two, and arrived at an incorrect conclusion. In short, the only reason terrorism and WMD are related is because the more widespread the proliferation, the more security leaks will exist. With each additional security leak, the chances of terrorists getting WMD on the black market increases. Otherwise, there is no relation between the two.

"Why dont these dubya groupies ralize that Iran has a lot of oil just like Iraq and thats what dubya is after, but it wont be easy taking over Iran. Watch and see how the US alienates themselves from the rest of the world"

That is so stupid. If it was all about oil, then the US would have kept Kuwait. If it was all about oil, then the US would not have toppled Saddam. Saudi was terrified of Saddam. They have the most and best oil in the gulf and would do anything Dubya asked in return for protection from Saddam. Think back upon the last decade. Everytime OPEC cut production, Saudi would increase theirs. They would have pumped 24x7 at maximum capacity if that's what it took to keep US forces between themselves and Saddam. Toppling Saddam was counter-productive to US oil interests. If you prefer, you can simply disregard Saudi and look at Iraq from a balance sheet. Iraq would have to pump oil non-stop for 40 years in order to pay back the amount of money the US has spent. Do you think Iraq will give the US 40 years worth of oil for free?

You need to broaden your sources of information. Whatever sources you currently use are obviously inadequate.

Posted by: John Smith at February 17, 2005 04:24 AM

"Actually it was the Jews who gave nuclear technology to the US in the later stages of WWII."

This is true. But there are numerous middle eastern-rooted scientists working in military industries of the US. Many of top notch advisors or managers of NASA are/have been Iranian. But it didn't make Iranians go to moon.

It is a waste of time in an argument when both parties come to the table to proove some personal prejudgements by any means possible. And it is indeed possible to justify anything you want. One has to be really and desperately searching for truth in order to find it. And should keep telling itself: "I don't know."

Posted by: Mohsen at February 17, 2005 03:58 PM

All I have ever been saying is that there is no impending invasion of Iran irregardless of the political positioning of all parties.

However, none of the world powers (China, US, Soviet, EU ... soon to be India) will allow the Iranians to develop nuclear weapons. Each and every one of them depends upon the "new world order" which gives them access to a global economy. The problem is the relatively beligerant attitude of the Iranian hardliners. It forces their hand and they are subsequently forced to appear aggressive. But it is false bravado. If the mullahs insist, the next step would be economic sanctions. Military action is a decade away unless the mullahs do something incredibly stupid. What the globalized community will do is continue to play "good cop - bad cop" with the EU cast into the role of good cop since they are withing missile range and the US playing the role of bad cop. Hopefully this will get the mullahs to desist without economic sanctions. Noboby wants to see Iran suffer under sanctions as did Iraq. It is a fate that should never befall any nation. If the "good cop - bad cop" works then the problem is self solving. Iraq will grow and prosper. As a full fledged member of the globalized economy, they will quickly become the wealthiest people in the gulf. Kind of like Japan of the mid-east. Meanwhile Najaf is the epicenter of Shia thought. Between the scholars and the pilgrims, Iran will eventually bow to the reformists and the loophole allowing the Ayatollah to hand pick the supreme council will be closed. With that minor revision to the constitution, Iran will have all barriers removed and the citizens themselves can freely choose their own destiny for their own country. The days of the Omaree are drawing to a close and their nuclear ambitions simply need to be delayed until the people assume power. That's really all there is to it.

Posted by: Joe at February 17, 2005 04:35 PM

Aaron, you are right on target. It is unfortunate that those (liberals) who claim they are compassionate and tolerant of others cannot believe that conservative Americans are actually capable of making sacrifices to advance freedom around the world. The lives of young military men is the greatest price a people can pay. Nevertheless, we do it because freedom is worth it. Not just to have it but to give it.

I believe it is because these liberals are habitually dishonest and to justify the guilty feelings of that in their conscience they have to believe that everyone else is just as dishonest.

America does not seek to conquer people and be an oppressive force in the world. Examine the last few decades of history with Libya. The United States and allies have exhanged blows with Libya in the past. Libya was working on a clandestine nuclear and biological weapons program which they have admitted. At one point they were at the top of the terror list. Now they are moving up the list of countries that choose to be peaceful and prosperous. They have started to become transparent and are choosing a path that leads them away from being aggressive and dangerous to their neighbors and the rest of the world.

Saddam could have made the same choice. Mullah Omar and Osama could choose also, in fact they have. Kim Jung Il can shoose. Choose non-aggression and peace or choose to be eliminated.

Why is it that the public in Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea and other oppressive countries have to live in fear of some government official coming to their home and snatching them or their loved ones away for their words or their beliefs? That is not the case in America unless one is planning to harm somebody else. The US government does not have mass grave cites they have to keep secret that contain people who espouse one belief or another that they do not like.

I say to those who stand in the way of freedom, greetings; death is on your door. Choose your path, freedom or death.

Posted by: Brad at February 17, 2005 08:54 PM

yeah freedom from life, and limb

How The U.S. Murdered a City

Clinton: We deprived Iran of democracy

Posted by: NUM at February 17, 2005 10:58 PM

How The U.S. Murdered a City...

Lies, All Lies...

I read at jihadunspun.com that the mujahideen had defeated the infidel forces at fooluja and inflicted a humilliating defeat upon them. They had been forced to withdraw from the city after thousands of US Marines were killed and are now they are being roasted at very high temperature in the hell, the gates of which were opened by the mujahideen just for this occasion. Only then did the mujahideen, who suffered no martyrs at all in this action, leave the liberated city to allow the residents to return.

Apparently some infidels were remaining, unbeknownst to the "lions of fooluja'". But today it is reported that they have now been driven out using sarin gas attacks. We finally found the WMD as the helpful mujahideen have located them for us.

How can you possibly cast doubt on the veracity of these reports which come from your correspondents at Marafkat al Islam and free Arab Press and are embedded with the moqwama.

Posted by: nur at February 17, 2005 11:26 PM

Of course they are!

Is this the best that the psychological warfare lot could come up with?

The factor of evil in the Bush regime is a constant. The case against George W. Bush analyzed point by point
"Several years ago, if someone had said that a state could perpetrate an act of mass murder in which tens of thousands of civilians were butchered, invade a sovereign nation using a casus belli based upon barefaced lies and forgery of documents and whose military forces could commit acts of rape, bullying, sodomy and sexual depravity on a shocking scale and then go on to commit acts of torture, one might have wondered whether such a report came from the annals of the Inquisition or Ancient Rome.

Posted by: NUM at February 18, 2005 12:01 AM

All sides have propaganda. Why do you believe yours? I certtainly don't believe much of what I see from the front, either from FOX or JUS.

Did the CIA really install the Shah in power? You believe that Pahlavi + 3 CIA guys became the Shah? I think he must have had some base within the country, possibly some friends in the military, to stage a coup. So were but midwives, at best, it seems to me. And we have not forgotten the Rex Theater either. Those who did that were monsters. So not only the Shah is brutal.

I think you said that you didn't justify the mullahs. Please also realize that I don't want open warfare with Iran. But, in my opinion we have been at low level war with Iran for 26 years. There is a long list of grievances from this on all of this.

Do you believe that we caused Saddam to attack Iran? That he would not have done this on his own? Or did we mearly continue to tilt towards him since there was such animosity towards Iran? That was after Beruit. Remember? Are you even old enough to remember? Many many grievances.

But still I think it is best if Iran gets no nukes and the mullahs simply fade away.

BTW. I am not a professional psy ops or anything like that. Not a policy maker or even one who would have input to policy. Just a regular person with no power at all.

Posted by: nur at February 18, 2005 12:54 AM

Of course none of that what'sit ops!
Not at all, not at all!

The Rule, Not the Exception -- The "Salvador Option"

Trouble is out of depth and used to these kind of morons, is a bitch, ain't it?

The Voice of the White House:
" the years of service in and around the White House and in various other official agencies, I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the American public are probably the most stupid tribe of hominids since the Neanderthals were forced into extinction by the Cro Magnons. I could send you, and you could publish, absolute proof that the Bush people knew to the day when 9/11 was coming (which they did) and no one would give a damn. As long as they could stuff food into their fat mouths, watch football or basketball games on the boob tube and have occasional sweaty and ill-executed sexual contacts, they wouldn't give a fancy damn if George came out into the Rose Garden for an important rigged press conference in a tutu with lots of lip rouge. Not that that would surprise very many people around here and if Fat Karl the Eunuch joined him, waddling around dressed the same, staffers would just smile to each other and the public would express outrage and go right on babbling mindless mutterings into their cellphones while waiting for the tanning salon to open. This Administration is rotten to the core. It is venal, corrupt, vicious and holds the voters in utter contempt.

Posted by: NUM at February 18, 2005 01:15 AM

The gruesome manner in which Nicholas Berg was murdered also reflects a mode of operation common to U.S. -backed death squads....

Wow! That's amazing. Who would have imagined that it is the US agents cutting off all those heads...

You think I don't remember what happened in El Salvidor? And yes, war is ugly. What else is new. They were using guns too.

I didn't hear if you believe that the US "installed" the Shah in power. I didn't hear if you believe that we put Saddam up to the war. I am curious about your take on those events. Please answer about that if you find time.

Posted by: nur at February 18, 2005 01:58 AM

Well NUM, you can find the whole history of US (and UK) involvment in the coup right here.


All I has to do was google 'cia iran coup'.

It's like I said. A handfull of cia guys and a few tens of thousands of dollars was all it took. The shah had support from the military, and virtually all of it as shown by the rapid collapse of Mossadeq's authority. He also had support among the merchants and surprisingly even from within the clergy who probably looked askance at the socialist/comunist leanings of Mr. Mossadeq. In any case we didn't cause this to happen. It did not happen in a vacuum and we did not impose the Shah on Iran. Really how could we? Why don't we just do it again if it's so easy?

Did we talk him into it? Sure, along with the Brits we encouraged him to take action and assured him of our support. Did he badly mismanage things during his 25 year reign? Sure. No question.

I remember having students from Iran back in the late 70's and they described to me the terror of the SAVAK and what an ass Pahlavi was. My mother's cousin married a medical student from Iran. Dr. Zahidi (not his real name) made clear that he was happy to be in the USA and not Iran, because the Shah was an ass. But I also remember the Rex. Made quite an impression on me at the time.

Now I didn't address Saddam and his war with Iran. That's another story, but I still find it doubtful that we put him up to it. If you have some source which shows that I would like to see it.

I think that you should try to be more skeptical. Take things with a grain of salt untill you can verify information independently.

Posted by: nur at February 18, 2005 08:34 PM

Waffle, sermon, blah, waffle, sermon, rubbish,lies, ......... "I didn't hear if you believe that we put Saddam up to the war"......rubbish, lies,.....

Slap my thigh them comics there don't write that kind of stories, do they?

Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran
Edited by Mark J. Gasiorowski and Malcolm Byrne
"Although official U.S. reports and published accounts described Mosaddeq's overthrow and the shah's restoration to power as inspired and carried out by Iranians, this was far from the full story. Memoirs of key CIA and British intelligence operatives and historical reconstructions of events have long established that a joint U.S.-British covert operation took place in mid-August, which had a crucial impact. Yet, there has continued to be a controversy over who was responsible for the overthrow of the popularly elected Mosaddeq, thanks to accounts by, among others, former Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and Zahedi's son, who later became a fixture in the Shah's regime. Those versions of events virtually ignored the possibility that any outside actors played a part, claiming instead that the movement to reinstate the Shah was genuine and nationwide in scope."


Exclusive: Saddam key in early CIA plot

"in the past Saddam was seen by U.S. intelligence services as a bulwark of anti-communism and they used him as their instrument for more than 40 years, according to former U.S. intelligence diplomats and intelligence officials."

Posted by: NUM at February 18, 2005 08:45 PM

This is a response to Aaron.

Aaron, their tentacles are planted into your mind.

I'm going to give you the opportunity to find out how they've managed to attach themselves to you, as parasites attach to their host.

Their strategy involves a few things that are probably the bread and butter of your daily life (apart from white bread and hormone-laced milk):

1) The mass media

2) Your fear and insecurity

3) Your lack of independent thinking

Here is the red pill you so desperately could use.

Read the following page for the sake of your own future, not the future of a whole people who you know very very very little about. You THINK you know. That's what the puppet masters want when they plant seeds of deception and lies everyday into your mind.

The red pill:


The blue pill:


Posted by: Saeed at February 19, 2005 01:36 AM

The above is also for Brad.

Posted by: Saeed at February 19, 2005 01:39 AM

Aaron and Brad,

In case you believe that the American mass media is telling you the truth, here's something that might cause you to reconsider your blind trust:


Posted by: Saeed at February 19, 2005 02:02 AM