Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe Green Movement opposition flexed its muscles again in Iran this week, taking advantage of anti-American protests on the anniversary of the 1979 seizure of the US embassy in Tehran (aka "the nest of spies") to rally thousands of anti-Ahmadinejad protestors into the streets.
Unfortunately, the Green resurgence in Iran is causing some Iran watchers to fall into the same old trap: threatening to halt US-Iran negotiations in favor of support for democracy, or some semblance of it, in Iran. The latest to make this mistake is Ray Takeyh, a former adviser to the Obama-era State Department, whose op-ed in today's Washington Post essentially suggests that America should cut off its negotiating nose to spite its pro-democracy face. He writes:
"Iran's hard-liners need to know that should they launch their much-advertised crackdown, the price for such conduct may be termination of any dialogue with the West."
What would the United States accomplish by ending dialogue with Iran, even a more repressive one? The United States has reasons both strategic and tactical for dealing with Iran, quite separate and distinct from our desire to see a more free, less repressive society. In fact, Iran's hardliners need to know that the United States will persist in talking to Iran no matter how difficult the talks become, and regardless of Iranian human rights concerns. That isn't appeasement, as the neocons and Republican members of Congress argue. It's just common sense.
President Obama's opening to Iran in January, his Nowruz message, and his Cairo speech all helped to galvanize the Iranian opposition, just as President Bush's bluster and sabre-rattling helped the hardliners quash any opposition earlier. Obama's judicious post-election refusal to join the neocons' call to enlist the United States in full-throated support for the Green Movement was exactly the right call, and it blunted the regime's crackdown by making it a lot harder for them to portray the greens as US-inspired. And so far, at least, Mousavi and Co. haven't asked for any help, while simultaneously denouncing Western calls for sanctions. Let's hope Obama stays the course, keeps talking to Iran, and doesn't fall into a feel-good trap about asserting too loudly what everyone knows: he supports human rights in Iran.
Of course, the paradox of the current state of affairs is that Mousavi and the Green Movement have generally taken to denouncing Ahmadinejad for his agreement to hand over the bulk of Iran's enriched uranium for re-processing in Russia and France. That accord, reached over prolonged, secret talks that culminated in a face-to-face meeting between US and Iranian diplomats on October 1, could be an important step forward. For opportunistic reasons, the Greens are now accusing Ahmadinejad of selling out Iran's nuclear rights.
That very fact explains why it's wrong for the United States to try to game Iranian internal politics.
In his op-ed, Takeyh warns, correctly, that Iran might (for internal reasons, mostly) draw out the negotiations, but curiously he links such a strategy to a plot by Ahmadinejad against his opposition:
"Tehran will sporadically offer to discuss the nuclear issue to whet the appetite of Western powers -- before moving against its remaining domestic detractors. The powers that be in Iran hope that a prolonged and inconclusive negotiating process will cause the West to recoil from criticism, much less impose sanctions over Iran's human rights abuses."
That idea is far too conspiratorial, however. Just as Obama faces domestic opposition to a deal with the "mad mullahs," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's Leader, faces domestic opposition to a deal with the Great Satan. (Just this week, Khamenei delivered a fierce, hysterical diatribe against the United States, even as his negotiators were proceeding apace.) Trying to discern the interplay between foreign and domestic strategies of Iran's current rulers is a fool's game, and it's likely that even Ahmadinejad and Khamenei don't know themselves how it's all likely to play out. Certainly, the two Iranian leaders -- if, indeed, they are still working together, as opposed to at cross-purposes -- don't have some grand, master strategy. Internally, they're trying to deal with a resilient opposition movement whose strength surprised them in June, and they're not doing very well at it. Externally, they're struggling to negotiate with the P5 + 1 in a chess game in which they have far fewer pieces than the West.
There no reason for giddy optimism about the US-Iran talks. But one thing is certain: for them to succeed at all, both Obama and Khamenei are going to have to be very, very patient.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
Ain't no big secret anymore that the once-decent 'Washington Post' has joined the rest of 'em and degenerated into another 'nuke them stinkin' A-rabs' zionist rag.
Common sense it most certainly is. The only thing to be gained from not talking to the 'enemy' is an opportunity for propaganda and fear mongering, which is, of course, exactly what Brauchli and his fellow necon geniuses want.
Posted by DejaVu at 11/05/2009 @ 11:24am
It'll be interesting to see how the picture transforms in the near future as China builds stronger ties to Iran for the purposes of access to Iranian oil and natural gas. There have been reports already of China offering to help out by way of providing refined petroleum and/or assisting Iran to increase its ability to refine its own product.
The US is playing an incredibly doltish game of chess in this regard.
Undoubtedly, the larger picture should call for a US instituted Manhattan Project style program to get us off of hydrocarbons, but that is another area where we are waiting for China to kick our asses at first. Watching the US in the foreign policy arena, if not the domestic one as well, is like watching the Washington Generals get schooled by the Harlem Globetrotters.
This would all be laughable if the consequences weren't so serious.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/05/2009 @ 11:38am
jeez...at least i haven't heard some spittle-head righty spout off about "appeasement" since chris matthews nailed that moron, kevin james (the righty radio talk head, not the comedian) who didn't even know what the word meant, much less the historical context of "peace in our time"...
US policy needs to be aimed at withdrawing from that part of the world entirely and re-allocating the buzillions of $$$$ we waste there back here. we do no good in that barbarian's nest and all foolishly compassionate efforts will blow up in our faces almost as surely as "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb iran" stupidity...
time to leave while we still have a shred of dignity - leave iraq, leave afghanistan, leave israel and her sparta-like military, backed by yummy nukes that iran can't have, to defend herself.
but talking to them is fine. talk is cheap - bombs and stupid land wars in asia ain't...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/05/2009 @ 11:42am
Ain't no big secret anymore that the once-decent 'Washington Post' has joined the rest of 'em and degenerated into another 'nuke them stinkin' A-rabs' zionist rag.
Common sense it most certainly is. The only thing to be gained from not talking to the 'enemy' is an opportunity for propaganda and fear mongering, which is, of course, exactly what Brauchli and his fellow necon geniuses want.
Posted by DejaVu at 11/05/2009 @ 11:24am
..except, the Iranians are Persians and Aryan...
not "stinkin Arabs"....
and regardless of what the author believes with all his heart..the facts are Carter should have guided Kohmeini's plane in from France about 200 miles short of Tehra, however, as a result of the perfect landing, Iran will have nukes as they give Obie the finger along with the rest of the world....
and after them, the Arab world will live in fear of Iran and nuke up themselves...and in short time , one of the group will use 'em, either on their neighbors or Israel.
Martyrs galore are on the way...Allah Akbahr
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/05/2009 @ 11:51am
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/05/2009 @ 11:51am
Care to be a little less vague, John?
Are you saying Carter should have shot down Khomenei's plane in 1979?
Posted by Mask at 11/05/2009 @ 12:17pm
Martyrs galore are on the way...Allah Akbahr
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/05/2009 @ 11:51am | ignore this person | warn this person
well, we DID start the bad blood with the persians back in the 50's when we overthrew mossadegh, democratically elected leader of iran, and replaced him with a monarchical dictator in the form of the shah...
imagine how we would feel were we they?
regardless they kinda got back at us in 79, and whatever the deal, are now dangerous, barbarously hostile and not our concern in the long run.
seems the best way to get them to do something is for US to tell them the opposite (and vice versa), so...
time to disengage...
land wars in asia are bad for business unless the business is death...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/05/2009 @ 12:41pm
"Care to be a little less savage, John?"
~Maskot at 12:17pm
At least that's how my eyes read that sentence.
:D
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/05/2009 @ 12:49pm
Are you saying Carter should have shot down Khomenei's plane in 1979?
Posted by Mask at 11/05/2009 @ 12:17pm
Yup. Or supported those who did...I am not protecting the Shaw...but this mess could have been avoided.
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/05/2009 @ 12:57pm
At least that's how my eyes read that sentence.
:D
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/05/2009 @ 12:49pm
This is hard line truth here...
Iran gets nukes, then the Arab neighbors will get them, too...and one of them will use it on another..and it may not be Israel...if they do use it on Israel, then you will have your oil free utopia you on the left dream about...
that is the savage part....
If Kohmania could have had a little longer vacation in France, I believe we would not be dealing with another Hilter that Iran now has in power, in fact, there may not have been an Iran/Iraq war nor a hostile presence in Iran at all nor another hostile anti Israel country in the Mideast.
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/05/2009 @ 1:04pm
As far as patience with Iran.....we have been patient with Iran since Carter let our people rot for 444 days...in 1979....and I believe the only reason we got them back was the mullahs in Tehran believed Reagan would come and get them.
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/05/2009 @ 1:07pm
"well, we DID start the bad blood with the persians back in the 50's when we overthrew mossadegh, democratically elected leader of iran, and replaced him with a monarchical dictator in the form of the shah... '
At the time they were communists, and in the prevailing attitudes of the area,plus the location in the gulf, the Russians...well...apparently, Truman drew the line in the sand, from what I understand...I am not so sure the Russians didn't "help" with the elections...
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/05/2009 @ 1:12pm
It's weird to think that you went to college, Monsta'.
Dja' graduate?
If so, the school that conducted such a travesty should be placed under critical review, and lose any public funding if they cannot dramatically improve their performance.
Sounds like just the sort of plan you yourself would approve, isn't it Monsta?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/05/2009 @ 1:26pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/05/2009 @ 1:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person
not so sure about the commie link - mossadegh was an admirer of FDR, like arbenz in guatemala. that commie canard was used more than once to justify intervention.
what sent up "red" flags was the fact that he was talking about nationalizing iran's oil industry, which appears to have been the real catalyst for intervention on the part of the US and UK.
regardless we intervened in their internal affairs in a nasty way and imposed a brutal monarchical dictator whose brutality paved the way for the current nighmare polity we have had to deal with for three decades now.
action/reaction...chains of causality....
iran resembles to me nothing so much as an angry adolescent who thrives on attention, any attention... and every time we step up to the world blowhorn and start making them look like the evil empire...
i think they love it...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/05/2009 @ 1:34pm
It's weird to think that you went to college, Monsta'.
Dja' graduate?
If so, the school that conducted such a travesty should be placed under critical review, and lose any public funding if they cannot dramatically improve their performance.
Sounds like just the sort of plan you yourself would approve, isn't it Monsta?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/05/2009 @ 1:26pm
Yes, my friend, I did...Marquette University..Chemistry and Biology..publiuc funding...Les Aspen and LBJs press secretary taught there..quite a few notables as far as Grqads and Staff.
Public funding, perhaps...but I paid my way through along with my family help, which I am and do pass along to others in my family. The school is private.
And, I have only a few credits short for Poly Sci, which I deemed entertainment and very interesting. Our prof was a negoiater on Salt 1 and 2 with Nixon, and then Ford with the Russians, and later headed the dept at Johns Hopkins...
What you find weird about me is weird in your view of the world...and in my view of the world, a little more practical and real life. I assure you, we can't all get along and never will, despite how much we try and desire...there are those with whom we can never "deal"...
Did you attend school? Did you graduate? In what? The travesty I find in your view is you cant even see mine, even if you disagree, while I see yours and do disagree, all without questioning your intelligence or the schoool you attended.
The difference is our two "paradigms"...mine allows acceptance for you and your views with mine with me, but yours dose not allow acceptance of my views within you to exist....
who is more liberal?..Me or you?
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/05/2009 @ 2:26pm
i think they love it... Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/05/2009 @ 1:34pm
agreed. how can anyone think they would be stupid or crazy enough to lob a nuke at anyone, knowing full well the same would shortly be coming their way. but then there is always that dopey segment of the u.s. population that needs a threat to justify washington's belligerence towards anyone who might stand in the way of the sacred nectar, oil.
Posted by kennyboy at 11/05/2009 @ 2:28pm
i think they love it...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/05/2009 @ 1:34pm
I am not sure about that....I went to college with many Iranians at the time, and a few of my friends parents were killed by the "Revolutionary Guards"...thugs without education. I met some of theri parents who never made it out...and their view was that the Russians were in their country trying to install their boy and we installed ours...
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/05/2009 @ 2:29pm
how can anyone think they would be stupid or crazy enough to lob a nuke at anyone, knowing full well the same would shortly be coming their way. but then there is always that dopey segment of the u.s. population that needs a threat to justify washington's belligerence towards anyone who might stand in the way of the sacred nectar, oil.
Posted by kennyboy at 11/05/2009 @ 2:28pm
I tend to take people at their word and history confirms the nuts keep theor word sometimes wioth zeal...Hitler, for example...
and Armyjihad claims he would gladly martyr 1/3 or more of his country to rid the earth of jews, Israel, and all enemys of Islam to bring about the 4th or 6th or whatever Imans return to set up the world as an Islamic paradise...I for one can barely contain myself...
I am sure they would let you be, tho.
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/05/2009 @ 2:34pm
Are you saying Carter should have shot down Khomenei's plane in 1979? ----Posted by Mask at 11/05/2009 @ 12:17pm
Yup. Or supported those who did...I am not protecting the Shaw...but this mess could have been avoided.----Posted by YourJomamma at 11/05/2009 @ 12:57pm
Kind of like how the Soviets shot down KAL-700?
Posted by Mask at 11/05/2009 @ 3:11pm
Kind of like how the Soviets shot down KAL-700?
Posted by Mask at 11/05/2009 @ 3:11pm
No, kinda like never let the guy take off from France. Cut a deal with Kohmeine or the French...
anything to prevent what we have now would have been worth it.
Spock and his "needs of the many out weigh the needs of a few Hitlers"....
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/05/2009 @ 3:54pm
The Shah was a decent, benevolent leader who cared for the Iranian people's well-being.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 4:37pm
The Shah was a decent, benevolent leader who cared for the Iranian people's well-being.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 4:37pm
Hahaha. This list always needs a bit of humor. Good for you rightwingnutcase.
Posted by Shingo at 11/05/2009 @ 5:17pm
Iran will have nukes as they give Obie the finger along with the rest of the world....
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/05/2009 @ 11:51am
Please feel free to link to an IAEA or intelligence report that backs up this claim. No rush, take your time.
Posted by Shingo at 11/05/2009 @ 5:20pm
Kind of like how the Soviets shot down KAL-700?
Posted by Mask at 11/05/2009 @ 3:11pm
We already shot down an Iranian passenger plane in Iranian air space, killing all 290 on board.
Posted by Shingo at 11/05/2009 @ 5:23pm
Posted by Shingo at 11/05/2009 @ 5:17pm
The Shah was a good guy. He was pro-Israel, pro-woman, anti-Mullah. He was a secular monarch with a democratically elected parliament. He was humble. He was quite sane. He did clearly care about his people.
By contrast, Iran today is a murderous totalitarian dictatorship run by crazed Islamists who are involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In Iran today, the age of marriage for girls is nine years old. In Iran today, people are lit on fire for questioning the Supreme Leader, gays are beaten to death, people who have sex out of marriage are stoned to death, and women are tortured and raped in jail for protesting on behalf of their own rights. Iran invaded Iraq in 1983, killing 700,000 people and using suicidal human wave attacks to export its jihadist "revolution" to that country. The murderous Mullahs in Tehran have killed 175,000 Iranians since 1979. They have openly declared their desire to wipe Israel off the map. They continue to train AQ operatives to carry out terror attacks against America. They privately discuss invading and annexing Bahrain once they get nukes to use as a deterrent against retaliation. They are the premier state sponsor of terror. They are responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Israelis. They continue to defy the UN and threaten America. They chant "Death to America!" EVERY FRIDAY NIGHT. They've done so EVERY FRIDAY NIGHT for THIRTY YEARS STRAIGHT!
What do you have against the Shah? Over his many decades in power, he killed between 10,000 and 16,000 Iranians? That's child's play.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 6:47pm
"....who is more liberal? Me or you?"
Posted Johnny "the Monsta" Maasch at 2:26pm
By way of labels I consider myself a progressive conservative, to be a bit more precise, than "liberal". It's complicated, of course, which is why I generally disdain the ridiculously oversimplified labels tossed about carelessly on tv and wreckless rightwing radio.
I know you graduated from Marquette, but I just like seeing you admit it here. I'm pretty sure you remember almost nothing of importance from your bio/chem degree. You've never posted anything here that shows that you have any grasp whatsoever of ecology to name one field you're supposed to understand.
Your understanding of US foreign policy in general, and the Mideast more specifically, is at approximately the 6th grade level. I have no idea how someone who's well read is supposed to begin to respond to the drivel you posted above.
I don't look down my nose at you, Monsta, but I do feel somewhat saddened sometimes when I read your stuff here.
Peace out, ~B
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/05/2009 @ 6:52pm
The Shah was good for the West. He gave away Iran's oil wealth, suppressed opposition, had his Israeli trained secret police torture and murder thousands.
He was an unelected tyrant who opposed democracy and lived like a king while the Iranian public suffered, which is why they turned against him. They hated him. He was put into power by a US backed coup, which overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran.
The Shah was even more brutal than the current Iranian leadership and one of the worst tyrants in the history of the Middle East.
Iran had no involvement in the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 Commission never suggested Iranian involvement, nor did the Bush Administration.
1. There are no nine years old girls being married in Iran. 2. There are no people being set on fire for questioning the Supreme Leader. In fact, the only people on fire are the followers of the MEK, a terrorist organisation, and the suicide bombers from Al Qaeda affiliated Judulla, both of whom the the US supports as it sets off bombs in Tehran. 3. Gays are not beaten to death. 4. The only people stoned to death for having sex out of marriage are in Saudi Arabia, our best friends. 5. Women in eh US military are routinely raped and die of dehydration for fear of going to the toilet in the middle of the night. 6. Iran never invaded Iraq. With our support and encouragement. Iraq attacked Iran, and initiated a war. 7. The war that Iraq started killed 700,000 people. 8. The Mullahs may have killed a few hundred Iranians since 1979, but nowhere near as many as the Shah put to death. 9. Iran has never declared any desire to wipe Israel off the map. 10. Iran are arch enemies of al Qaeda and supported the US efforts to go after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
Posted by Shingo at 11/05/2009 @ 7:12pm
11. Ironically, it is the US who are supporting Al Qaeda groups against Iran and who supported Al Qaeda up until 9/11. 12. There is no evidence of plans to invaded and annex Bahrain. If they'd said so privately, you wouldn't know about it. 13. Iran is not making nukes. The IAEA and 16 US intelligence agencies agree there is no evidence that they are. 14. Iran is accused of being the premier state sponsor of terror by the premier state sponsor of terror, the US, who are supporting at least 3 terrorist groups against Iran and 2 against Lebanon. 15. Iran is not responsible for the deaths of any Americans or Israelis, but America is responsible for the deaths for a million Iranians. 16. Iran has never threatened America. 17. They do not chant "Death to America!" every Friday night, or ever for that matter 18. Israel defies the UN and is rewarded.
Posted by Shingo at 11/05/2009 @ 7:14pm
"The Shah was even more brutal than the current Iranian leadership and one of the worst tyrants in the history of the Middle East."
The current Iranian government has killed 175,000 people according to my sources. The highest estimate I've ever seen for deaths under the Shah is 16,000.
The Shah was actually the freest and most tolerant tyrant ever to rule in the Middle East.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 7:25pm
The current Iranian government has killed 175,000 people according to my sources. The highest estimate I've ever seen for deaths under the Shah is 16,000.
The Shah was actually the freest and most tolerant tyrant ever to rule in the Middle East.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 7:25pm
Rubbish. The Iranian leadership killed far fewer people than the vile and disgusting tyrant the Shah.
Posted by Shingo at 11/05/2009 @ 7:30pm
"Iran had no involvement in the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 Commission"
The Commission found that most of the hijackers were sheltered, aided, trained, harbored, and transported abroad by the Iranian government, which took actions to prevent red flags from being raised at their transportation -- red flags that would have prevented 9/11. It found that after 9/11, Tehran has continued to fund and train AQ and has helped its senior operatives master how to use explosives for future attacks on America.
"There are no nine years old girls being married in Iran"
The law of the land in Iran clearly stipulates that girls can be married at the age of nine. You don't know what you're talking about.
"The only people stoned to death for having sex out of marriage are in Saudi Arabia, our best friends"
Funny, since I've seen filmed videos of Iranians being stoned to death by the mad, murderous Mullahs.
It is funny how so many people forget that Iran invaded Iraq in 1983, and argue seriously that "Iran has never attacked its neighbors" in willful resistance to reality.
"The Mullahs may have killed a few hundred Iranians since 1979,"
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Iran is accused of being the premier state sponsor of terror by the premier state sponsor of terror, the US"
The GREAT SATAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"They do not chant "Death to America!" every Friday night, or ever for that matter"
Funny that I've seen so many videos of them doing so.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 7:38pm
"Rubbish. The Iranian leadership killed far fewer people than the vile and disgusting tyrant the Shah."
I have Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the US Government and State Department on my side. Looks like the time has come for you to show me your source for this "data," though I know in advance you don't have one.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 7:41pm
"America is responsible for the deaths for a million Iranians"
Your calculator needs new batteries.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 7:46pm
"They do not chant "Death to America!" every Friday night, or ever for that matter"
"or ever for that matter"?????????
Who do you think came up with that classic jihadist slogan?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 7:47pm
"had his Israeli trained secret police torture and murder thousands."
Huh, I never knew they were trained by Israel. Then again, you saying so doesn't vindicate the claim that one learns something new every day, as you do love your conspiracy theories about how the Jews are secretly behind all the evil in the world.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 7:51pm
Your understanding of US foreign policy in general, and the Mideast more specifically, is at approximately the 6th grade level. I have no idea how someone who's well read is supposed to begin to respond to the drivel you posted above.
I don't look down my nose at you, Monsta, but I do feel somewhat saddened sometimes when I read your stuff here.
Peace out, ~B
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/05/2009 @ 6:52pm
Sure you are...you are looking down with your 6th grade understanding comment...instead of speaking to my position, dismiss my views out of hand as if one "only understood the arena as well as you"...
How is it you should be in a position to determine"the importance of anything I post from my Chem/Bio degress"?
I have had more science than ALGORE..so does my 18 year old..I bet you absorb all ALGORE shovels right up to the carbon indulgences..
So, B KOOL...don't be sad... and don't be so condesending.....I read all of your posts....
and my question remains un answered...
Where did you go to school and what area of study have you mastered? I can't tell from your postings what it is you have decided to excel in , but I am sure it isn't the ME, or economics, or science...so..enlighten me.
And don't be sad. Be real.
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/05/2009 @ 7:51pm
Rubbish. The Iranian leadership killed far fewer people than the vile and disgusting tyrant the Shah.
Posted by Shingo at 11/05/2009 @ 7:30pm
How many "Martyrs" did the Iranian govt send in to clear the mine fielkds with tennis shoes during the Iraq/Iran war...not counting those under 12?
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/05/2009 @ 8:03pm
I think you will find the biggest killer of Muslims in the ME or anywhere else... is other Muslims....
There is one country that has come to the rescue of Muslims more than any other country on earth, including other Muslim countrys....think Bosnia...for a hint....
US, yup...us.
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/05/2009 @ 8:07pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 7:38pm
"The Commission found that most of the hijackers were sheltered, aided, trained, harbored, and transported abroad by the Iranian government"
The Commission stated no such thing. The hijackers were aided and funded by the Saudi and Pakistani government.
The Commission never stated that Iran had any connection to al Qaeda.
"The law of the land in Iran clearly stipulates that girls can be married at the age of nine. "
Wrong. There is no such law and you have failed to prove any proof.
"Funny, since I've seen filmed videos of Iranians being stoned to death by the mad, murderous Mullahs. "
No you haven't.
"It is funny how so many people forget that Iran invaded Iraq in 1983"
Probably because it's a lie. What's funny is how those that argued Saddam was bad because he attacked Iran, are now arguing that Iran is bad because it defended itself. Iran has never attacked or invaded anyone in 300 years.
"The Mullahs may have killed a few hundred Iranians since 1979,"
False. They've killed less than then Shah and less than America has.
"Funny that I've seen so many videos of them doing so."
No you haven't.
Posted by Shingo at 11/05/2009 @ 8:23pm
Huh, I never knew they were trained by Israel.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 7:51pm
The secret police, SAVAK, were trained by Israel and supplied by the U.S., were infamous for the use of torture and assassination. And meanwhile the Shah's personal corruption grew ever more blatant.
Iran's vast oil wealth was squandered on palaces and ceremonies, used to enrich a small class of cronies and collaborators, and funneled into massive weapons purchases from the U.S.
Throughout the last years of the Shah's reign of terror, as opposition grew and the security forces massacred more and more demonstrators in the streets, U.S. support never wavered.
In 1978 President Jimmy Carter toasted Reza Pahlavi, reading off some speechwriter's inane prose:
"Iran under the leadership of the Shah is an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world. This is a great tribute to you, Your Majesty, and to your leadership, and to the respect, admiration and love which your people give to you."
Within a year the Shah's leadership would be over, and some ten to twelve thousand of his people would be dead at his hands.
Hundreds, perhaps thousands of protestors were killed on a single day, September 8, 1978, known as Black Friday in Iran.
Posted by Shingo at 11/05/2009 @ 8:27pm
By 1976, Amnesty International announced that Iran had the worst human rights record on Earth, no small distinction on this particular planet.
Posted by Shingo at 11/05/2009 @ 8:28pm
How many "Martyrs" did the Iranian govt send in to clear the mine fielkds with tennis shoes during the Iraq/Iran war...not counting those under 12?
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/05/2009 @ 8:03pm
I take it you are referring to those who volunteered to run into minefields, in order to clear the way for the Iranian soldiers behind them?
Posted by Shingo at 11/05/2009 @ 8:31pm
I think you will find the biggest killer of Muslims in the ME or anywhere else... is other Muslims....
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/05/2009 @ 8:07pm
I think you'll find that the biggest killer of Christians and Jews anywhere, have been Christians.
Posted by Shingo at 11/05/2009 @ 8:33pm
"The Commission never stated that Iran had any connection to al Qaeda."
Obviously, you never read the Commission.
"Wrong. There is no such law and you have failed to prove any proof."
I could quote the Iranian Constitution or the Ayatollah Khomeini or Christopher Hitchens talking about this law, but the burden of proof is on you, as you are the only one who's ever questioned the existence of this law that everyone else appears to know about.
"By 1976, Amnesty International announced that Iran had the worst human rights record on Earth, no small distinction on this particular planet."
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Shingo, your lies are so obvious!
In this case, though, he has a source, namely the discredited pathological liar Mark Zepezauer, who made up this claim in one of his Socialist rants. One might ask, "Which country actually had this record in 1976?" The answer is Cambodia of course, then under the rule of Pol Pot.
Shingo, you know very well that the Shah killed no more than 16,000 people; in fact, you once argued he killed closer to 10,000.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 8:45pm
"Obviously, you never read the Commission. "
Yes I have, and I am right, which is why no one in the Bush or Obama administrations has ever accused Iran of any links to 911. Iran had nothing to do with 911 and are bigger enemies of Al Qaeda then even the US.
"I could quote the Iranian Constitution or the Ayatollah Khomeini or Christopher Hitchens talking about this law"
Hitchens is a discredited pathological liar who helped speard the lies that took us to war in Iraq.
"Shingo, you know very well that the Shah killed no more than 16,000 people; in fact, you once argued he killed closer to 10,000."
And the Mullahs killed fewer than that.
Posted by Shingo at 11/05/2009 @ 9:02pm
The Mullahs have killed more people than died in Rwanda.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 9:05pm
"The Commission's final report also offered new evidence of increased contact between Iran and al-Qaeda. The report contains information about how several of the 9/11 hijackers passed through Iran, and indicates that officials in Iran did not place entry stamps in their passports. However, according to the report (Chapter 7), there is no evidence that Iran was aware of the actual 9/11 plot. Iran has since implemented several widely-publicized efforts to shut down al-Qaeda cells operating within its country."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report
As it turns out, Iran has NEVER stamped passports of those visiting Iran
Posted by Shingo at 11/05/2009 @ 9:20pm
"The Commission's final report also offered new evidence of increased contact between Iran and al-Qaeda. The report contains information about how several of the 9/11 hijackers passed through Iran, and indicates that officials in Iran did not place entry stamps in their passports. However, according to the report (Chapter 7), there is no evidence that Iran was aware of the actual 9/11 plot. Iran has since implemented several widely-publicized efforts to shut down al-Qaeda cells operating within its country."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report
As it turns out, Iran has NEVER stamped passports of those visiting Iran
Posted by Shingo at 11/05/2009 @ 9:20pm
The Mullahs have killed more people than died in Rwanda.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 9:05pm
Rubbish. The Mullahs have killed less than the Shah.
Posted by Shingo at 11/05/2009 @ 9:21pm
As far as why Bush was so kind towards Iran, the reason is simple. The specific individual terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 hid in Afghanistan. However, Afghanistan was so backwards and devastated it was little more than a place to hide. More sophisticated states are the primary trainers, recruiters, and funders of jihadists. Jihadists are armed, indoctrinated, and supported by myriad evil regimes, but the two most important are Iran and Saudi Arabia. Bush simply focused on the specific terrorist, Osama, who pulled off 9/11, ignoring that more Osamas would spring up as long as Middle Eastern countries continued to support jihad and brainwash their children into supporting it. Bush bizarrely asked Iran, the leading state sponsor of terror, to join an "anti-terrorism coalition" (!), even as he shook hands with our "allies" in Saudi Arabia. Obama, meanwhile, has exchanged holiday greetings with the Mullahs in Tehran and bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 9:22pm
The Mullahs have killed 175,000 in addition to 700-900,000 through their unilateral invasion of Iraq.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 9:24pm
"there is no evidence that Iran was aware of the actual 9/11 plot"
True.
"Iran has since implemented several widely-publicized efforts to shut down al-Qaeda cells operating within its country."
To save face. It's harbored at least 22 senior AQ terrorists since 9/11. The Commission found that AQ members after 9/11 were trained in the use of explosives in Tehran.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 9:34pm
However, Afghanistan was so backwards and devastated it was little more than a place to hide.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 9:22pm
So you have contradicted yourself. You used to say that Afghanistan attacked us on 911, now you're saying that Afghanistan was simply a place to hide.
At last, I'm glad to see you've come to your senses and accepted reality.
The main terrorist ssupporters as Saudi Arabia, pakistan (who provided money to the 19 highjackers) and the US.
Osama was a fringe figure until Bush invaded Iraq and declared it to be a Crusade. This turned Osama into a prophet overnightm, because he predicted that the Americans would launch a religious war against Islam.
When Iran captured key Al Qaeda figures and offered to exchange them for the terrorist leaders of the MEK, Bush refused, choosing instead to back this terrorist group ( as we always do) to create chaos in Tehran. The MEK are listen by the State department as terrorists and have killed Americans.
Bush also backed kaleid Sheik Mohammed's old Al Qaeda gang, Jundulla, to carry out suicide attacks in Tehran. When it comes to supporting terrorism, the US are the kings.
Bush kissed the leader of the world's second largets terrorist supoprter on the cheeck and figuratively on the ass. He even held hands with him.
Posted by Shingo at 11/05/2009 @ 9:56pm
The Mullahs have killed 175,000 in addition to 700-900,000 through their unilateral invasion of Iraq.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 9:24pm
A few weeks ago you were blaming Saddam for those deaths. That's a brilliant piece of flip flopping.
In any case, the Mullahs have killed a few thousand at the most.
Posted by Shingo at 11/05/2009 @ 9:58pm
Saddam was innocent of those deaths.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 9:59pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 9:34pm
"Iran has since implemented several widely-publicized efforts to shut down al-Qaeda cells operating within its country."
Haha too funny. So has the America.
"It's harbored at least 22 senior AQ terrorists since 9/11."
Any sources for this?
"The Commission found that AQ members after 9/11 were trained in the use of explosives in Tehran."
No it didn't. That's just Islamophobic neocon propaganda from the discredited liar, Daniel Pipes.
Posted by Shingo at 11/05/2009 @ 10:00pm
"CHILDREN as young as 13 were hanged from cranes, six at a time, in a barbaric two-month purge of Iran's prisons on the direct orders of Ayatollah Khomeini, according to a new book by his former deputy.
More than 30,000 political prisoners were executed in the 1988 massacre - a far larger number than previously suspected. Secret documents smuggled out of Iran reveal that, because of the large numbers of necks to be broken, prisoners were loaded onto forklift trucks in groups of six and hanged from cranes in half-hourly intervals."
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 10:02pm
Saddam was innocent of those deaths.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 9:59pm
But Saddam started the war and the war only continued becasue of US support for Saddam.
All of a sudden, Saddam in an innocent man. Tell me rightwingnutcase, was Saddam a decent, benevolent leader who cared for the Iraqi people's well-being?
Posted by Shingo at 11/05/2009 @ 10:03pm
CHILDREN as young as 13 were hanged from cranes, six at a time, in a barbaric two-month purge of Iran's prisons on the direct orders of Ayatollah Khomeini, according to a new book by his former deputy.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 10:02pm
Wow, did they use shredding machines like Saddam did?
You're hillarious.
I read that the Shah used broken bottles to rape prisoners (so does the CIA mind you), hooks on men's genitals, boiled people alien and poured boiling water into cavities.
Maybe a few thousands died during the 1988 riots.
"Secret documents smuggled out of Iran reveal that"
Don't tell me, that they took babies out of incubators and left them on the floor right? Poops, sorry, wrong Muslims country
Posted by Shingo at 11/05/2009 @ 10:07pm
"As House Resolution 398 (May 06, 2004) has rightly recognized, the illegitimate government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has engaged, and continues to engage, in efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Such weapons would pose an immediate threat not only to Iran's neighbors, but ultimately to the entire world. The cruelty of the IRI regime is well known and abundantly documented. The regime has been implicated in assassinations throughout the Middle East, Europe, and the United States; the murder of more than 100,000 Iranians; continuing policies of rape, torture, and arbitrary imprisonment as political tools; and the kidnapping of thousands of women and girls for sale into prostitution and slavery."
This number is based on the low estimates of the 1988 massacre. Factoring in additional evidence, the IRI had killed far more than 125,000 by 2004 (when this was written). Amnesty International tries to keep track of how many people the regime kills each year, though of course it underestimates. Based on their numbers, the IRI has probably killed an additional approaching 50,000 since 2004.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 10:09pm
"As House Resolution 398 (May 06, 2004) has rightly recognized, the illegitimate government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has engaged, and continues to engage, in efforts to acquire nuclear weapons."
Debunked by the 2007 NIE.
"The cruelty of the IRI regime is well known and abundantly documented. "
Sadly it hasn't, which is why the numbers are so inconsistent.
"The regime has been implicated in assassinations throughout the Middle East, Europe, and the United States"
Allegations which are debunked by the CIA.
"continuing policies of rape, torture, and arbitrary imprisonment as political tools"
Israel does the same thing
"and the kidnapping of thousands of women and girls for sale into prostitution and slavery."
Not nearly as many as Israel.
"This number is based on the low estimates of the 1988 massacre. Factoring in additional evidence, the IRI had killed far more than 125,000 by 2004 (when this was written). "
Even if that were true, the US killed 3 times that many in 6 years in Iraq alone.
Got anymore? This is so much fun.
Posted by Shingo at 11/05/2009 @ 10:14pm
"A "fanatic whose judgments are harsh, reasoning bizarre and conclusions surreal," in the description of Time naming him Man of that Year, Khomeini sought to "export"[110] his theocratic order to surrounding Islamic countries, aiding Muslims whose rulers he thought corrupt, like the Arab gulf monarchs, or secular, like Saddam. Khomeini was also a Shiite, and despised the secular Sunnis who ran Iraq, marginalized Iraq's Shiite majority, and governed Iraq's six Shiite holy shrines.
Realizing his peril, Saddam strove to ingratiate himself with the Iranians, to tie Arab nationalism to Islamic fundamentalism and to preserve the status quo. By late 1979, he had made various public gestures of piety and invited Tehran to arbitrate their differences. The revolutionaries, however, spurned the diplomatic notes--Khomeini remained "impervious"[111]--and "reject[ed] resort to all means of peaceful settlement."[112] Instead, they goaded the Kurds and Shiites to depose Saddam, as Iranian operatives tried to assassinate senior Iraqi officials. By the time they nearly killed Tariq Aziz on April 1, 1980, border clashes, including artillery bombardments and occasional air raids, were spreading and intensifying, largely at Iran's instigation.
"Objectively," judges the military historian John Keegan, "the resort to force was a logical option."[120] Indeed, only force would have, as it did, thwarted Khomeini and kept Saddam in power. "War with Iran," security scholars John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt conclude, "was not a reckless adventure; it was an opportunistic response to a significant threat."[121]"
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 10:21pm
Iraq surrendered unilaterally to the Mullahs in 1983. Then, the Mullahs invaded Iraq. Iraq's initial 1980 attack was a response to Iranian terrorist attacks and assassination attempts against Iraq.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 10:24pm
"Even if that were true, the US killed 3 times that many in 6 years in Iraq alone."
In 2006, the bloodiest year of the Iraq war, American soldiers killed (accidently) a bit more than 200 Iraqi civilians. All the other deaths were caused by the terrorists and insurgents that the Americans were there to defeat and protect the Iraqis from.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 10:35pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 10:21pm
Wow, you've suddenly become an apologist for Saddam Hussein.
"Iraq surrendered unilaterally to the Mullahs in 1983."
There is no record of any surrender. Saddam was losing ans the US convinced him to keep the war going.
Once the war began, then crossing borders was inevitable, but Iran never invaded Iraq.
Iraq has not invaded or attacked anyone in 300 years.
Posted by Shingo at 11/05/2009 @ 10:40pm
"The war began when Iraq invaded Iran on 22 September 1980 following a long history of border disputes and fears of Shia insurgency among Iraq's long-suppressed Shia majority influenced by the Iranian Revolution. Although Iraq hoped to take advantage of revolutionary chaos in Iran and attacked without formal warning, they made only limited progress into Iran and within several months were repelled by the Iranians who regained virtually all lost territory by June, 1982. For the next six years, Iran was on the offensive.[15] Despite calls for a ceasefire by the United Nations Security Council, hostilities continued until 20 August, 1988. The last prisoners of war were exchanged in 2003.[15][16]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War
Nowhere is there any mention of a surrender by Iran in 1983. What is significant about 1983 is that this was one of the years that Rumsfeld visited Baghdad to provide Saddam with weapons and support for his war with Iran.
Between 1983–1985, there was a straetgic stalemate between Iran and Iran.
Posted by Shingo at 11/05/2009 @ 10:44pm
In 2006, the bloodiest year of the Iraq war, American soldiers killed (accidently) a bit more than 200 Iraqi civilians. All the other deaths were caused by the terrorists and insurgents that the Americans were there to defeat and protect the Iraqis from.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 10:35pm
1.2 million have been killed as a result of the US invasion of Iraq. US fores have killed a third of that number ie. approximately 400,000 people.
Posted by Shingo at 11/05/2009 @ 10:46pm
Iraq surrendered unilaterally to the Mullahs in 1983. Then, the Mullahs invaded Iraq. Iraq's initial 1980 attack was a response to Iranian terrorist attacks and assassination attempts against Iraq.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 10:24pm
False. 1983 marked the year that Donald Rumsfeld rode into Baghdad and shook hands with Saddam and promised him weapons and support to continue the war with Iran.
There is no record of any offer of surrender from Iraq.
Posted by Shingo at 11/05/2009 @ 10:49pm
"There is no record of any surrender"
This is from the article you just brought up: "Saddam decided to withdraw his armed forces completely from Iran, deploying them along the international border between Iraq and Iran.[28] Efraim Karsh states that Saddam made this choice because the Iraqi leader believed that his army was now too demoralised and damaged to hold onto any territory in Iran, and that Iran could be successfully resisted through a line of defence on Iraqi land near the border.[28] Using the Israeli invasion of Lebanon on 6 June 1982 as a pretext for a withdrawal, Saddam suggested to Iran that it should stop fighting and send its troops to assist the Palestinians fighting in Lebanon, an offer which was refused.[28] The withdrawal began on 20 June, and was completed by 30 June.[28] Karsh describes Saddam's decision to withdraw his forces from Iran as "one of his wisest strategic moves during the war".[28]
A Saudi Arabia-backed plan to end the war agreed to by Iraq included $70 billion in war reparations to be paid by Arabian states of the Persian Gulf on behalf of Iraq, and complete the Iraqi evacuation from Iranian territory - an offer called by some critics of Iranian government as "extraordinarily favorable to Iran."[33] Iran rejected Iraq's offer, demanding the removal of the Saddam Hussein regime, the repatriation of 100,000 Shi'ites expelled from Iraq before the war, and $150 billion in war reparations.[citation needed]..."
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 10:49pm
...On 21 June, Khomeini indicated that Iran would invade Iraq shortly, and on 22 June, the Iranian Chief-of-Staff Shirazi declared to "continue the war until Saddam Hussein is overthrown so that we can pray at Karbala and Jerusalem".[28] This matched a comment made by Khomeini on the issue of a truce with Iraq: "There are no conditions. The only condition is that the regime in Baghdad must fall and must be replaced by an Islamic Republic."[34]
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 10:51pm
"1.2 million have been killed as a result of the US invasion of Iraq. US fores have killed a third of that number ie. approximately 400,000 people."
Nonsense.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 10:52pm
"Iraq has not invaded or attacked anyone in 300 years."
??????????????????
"On 21 June, Khomeini indicated that Iran would invade Iraq shortly, and on 22 June, the Iranian Chief-of-Staff Shirazi declared to "continue the war until Saddam Hussein is overthrown so that we can pray at Karbala and Jerusalem"."
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 10:53pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 10:49pm
There is no mention of the world surrender in any article/
Withdrawing forces to the border is not surrendering. It is adopting a defensive strategy, but continuing the war. As Karsh explained, the move was not a surrender, but a strategic move.
Saddam had attacked Iran, and started a war, thus Iran were entitled to demand the overthrow of Saddam.
Saddam did not lay down his weapons and allow Iran to enter Iraq. So you see, there was no surrender.
Posted by Shingo at 11/05/2009 @ 11:00pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 10:52pm
Sorry but it's true.
1.2 million have been killed as a result of the US invasion of Iraq. US fores have killed a third of that number ie. approximately 400,000 people.
Posted by Shingo at 11/05/2009 @ 11:02pm
"On 21 June, Khomeini indicated that Iran would invade Iraq shortly, and on 22 June, the Iranian Chief-of-Staff Shirazi declared to "continue the war until Saddam Hussein is overthrown so that we can pray at Karbala and Jerusalem"."
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 10:53pm
Iraq had already attacked Iran and declared war, thus Iran were entitled to retaliated and invade Iraq. The invasion was a response, not an unprovoked act of aggression.
So it still stands that Iran has not attacked on invaded any country in 300 years.
Posted by Shingo at 11/05/2009 @ 11:04pm
"On 21 June, Khomeini indicated that Iran would invade Iraq shortly, and on 22 June, the Iranian Chief-of-Staff Shirazi declared to "continue the war until Saddam Hussein is overthrown so that we can pray at Karbala and Jerusalem"."
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 10:53pm
As it turned out, Khomeini never made good on that promise, because Iran didn't invade Iraq.
Posted by Shingo at 11/05/2009 @ 11:07pm
Wouldn't it be cool if Shingo and rightwingnutcase....
were the same guy?
(j/k Shingo)
Posted by Mask at 11/06/2009 @ 07:27am
Patience with Iran?
According to the UN, they may have just tested a 2-point implosion device for nuclear warheads small enough to put on missiles.
Negotiation allows Iran to buy more time.
Pinpoint strikes on what are now obviously nuclear weapons sites by the world's biggest state sponsor of terrorism buy US time.
Who would you prefer have the most time?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/06/2009 @ 08:13am
Patience with Iran?
According to the UN, they may have just tested a 2-point implosion device for nuclear warheads small enough to put on missiles.
Negotiation allows Iran to buy more time.
Pinpoint strikes on what are now obviously nuclear weapons sites by the world's biggest state sponsor of terrorism buy US time.
Who would you prefer have the most time?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/06/2009 @ 08:13am
IRAN IS NOT A THREAT TO WORLD PEACE. IT NEVER ATTACKED ANY NATIONS. IT NEVER USED CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON ANY NATIONS.IT NEVER DROPPED PHOSPHOROUS BOMBS. BEFORE GOING AFTER IRAN, DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE NUKES OF INDIA,ISRAEL,NORTH KOREA AND PAKISTAN WHO ARE NON-SIGNATORIES WITH THE IAEA.
Posted by Dastu11 at 11/07/2009 @ 08:01am
Pinpoint strikes obliterating Israel will remove a nuclear equipped rogue state that has invaded every neighboring state at catastrophic loss of life and untold human suffering.
Posted by SmashIsrael at 11/07/2009 @ 11:17am
Mr. Dreyfuss says: "In fact, Iran's hardliners need to know that the United States will persist in talking to Iran no matter how difficult the talks become, and regardless of Iranian human rights concerns. That isn't appeasement, as the neocons and Republican members of Congress argue. It's just common sense." The common definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Isn't is what Mr. Dreyfuss suggests? On the other hand, dissidents in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were happy whan the US supported them. So what's wrong with Iran's "dissidents?" I want to repeat again and again: Mr. Dreyfuss caters to Israeli haters like the last poster smash and does nothing to show that he is not one of them himself.
Posted by teasethegeese at 11/07/2009 @ 3:12pm
I want to repeat again and again: Mr. Dreyfuss caters to Israeli haters like the last poster smash and does nothing to show that he is not one of them himself.Posted by teasethegeese at 11/07/2009 @ 3:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Just as you cater to Israel lovers, a bizarre continent of ultra-rightwing racists, religious zombies who believe they are God's chosen, Jewish and Christian psychotics eager to initiate WWIII to fulfill biblical prophesy, neocons hoping to overthrow the Iranian government (for the second time) in order to loot their oil reserves, and assorted bacterial strains , many as yet uncatalogued.
Posted by rykart at 11/07/2009 @ 5:40pm