Free Thoughts on Iran
Front Page | About FToI | Authors | Archives | Comment Policy | Disclaimer
e-mail

bra.gif Touba and the Meaning of Night | Main | The Solution: Beeparm Hebeeeeeep! ket.gif

July 20, 2006

Justifying Mass Murder and the Strategy of Failure
Niyayesh Afshordi  [info|posts]

Israeli.jpg “It has been more than a week that Israel has been pounding Lebanon with hundreds of tones of explosives, all with the noble goal of dismantling Hezbolloah, a well-known terrorist organization. Of course, Israel has one of the most advanced armies in the world, meaning that they can surgically strike the Hezbollah targets, while keeping down civilian casualties to an absolute minimum. As the Israeli military actions were provoked by kidnapping of two of its soldiers, the international community, including many in the Arab world, but with the obvious exception of Syria and Iran, have been blaming Hezbollah for the crisis, and thus condone the Israeli initiative. Israeli action is even more-so justified as Hezbollah has been ruthlessly bombarding civilian targets in northern Israel with hundreds of rockets over the past week, killing over a dozen Israelis …”

This is a brief picture of the new “Mideast Crisis” as seen on the mainstream US news channels. It is amazing how every sane commentator or (ex-) diplomat is simply happy with the Israeli reaction, with a few exceptions; those who look crazy. Of course, there are other clues that you may pick on. For example, the number of Lebanese dead is some factor of twenty higher than the Israeli side, while the numbers of injured are comparable! But more important than the number of casualties, for Israel, is the nobility of the end goal. In the words of the Israeli ambassador to the UN: “In the getting rid of this terrorist organization, we are not just doing a favor to Israel, or Lebanon, but rather to the whole civilization …” It is truly a noble undertaking … or is it?

In observing this display of politics and power, it is hard not to wonder if there is more going on behind the scene that is visible to the naked eye. Is this all a devious plan by the Iranian policy makers in order to divert attention from their ongoing nuclear weapons program? Although this seems to be a common theory, I somehow think that we are giving the “Iranian policy makers” too much credit, by assuming that they could predict such a domino effect. Or may be they just got lucky!

On the other hand, there is an eerie familiarity about how events are unfolding in “the only democracy of the middle east”. Something about a new leader, starting a new noble war in order to avoid domestic problems or gain credibility (and credibility is what he gets). A not-so-distant war, in a not-so-distant country …

It is no secret that American and Israeli governments (and publics) enjoy close implicit and explicit ties. While the true underpinning of this close relationship is beyond the interest (and intelligence) of this piece, it is not hard to imagine why the politics of these two countries may become increasingly similar over time. An interesting side effect is that whenever you hear Israeli politicians on American TV, it is as if they are talking to their own constituents, as if it is the American public that is going to vote for them. In fact, I doubt that there would be many US elected officials who are as well-spoken as their Israeli counterparts, appearing on US news channels. Of course, when it comes to western politics, as always, selling the most hypocritical policies with the right choice of words is the name of the game.

Apart from this side, and coming back to the crisis at hand, the similarity between the Israeli latest offensive on Lebanon, and what we know as the “Operation Iraqi Freedom” are subtle, but yet unmistakable. Talking to a few Lebanese reveals that Hezbollah is far more than an extremist terrorist group, but rather intimately intertwined with the fabric of the Lebanese society. They are considered as the pride of the Lebanese society who are credited for ending Israeli occupation, and are popular, not only with the Shia muslims, but also with Sunnis and Christians. In fact, more than two thirds of the Lebanese public somehow benefit from the services of Hezbollah. Therefore, it is not hard to imagine that destroying Hezbollah takes nothing less than destroying Lebanon, and putting it back together from scratch.

Sounds familiar? Add to it the fact that Saddam Hussein was such an unpopular dictator, and yet US is in so much trouble for removing him. On the other hand, Hezbollah is the most popular political group in Lebanon (whose popularity increases by the minute).

I assume that the majority of the Israeli public have already made peace with the moral implications of the policies of their elected government (some of which bring about significant suffering and death, among other things). After all, this is a democracy. What this young democracy is constantly overlooking is the long term effects of using brute force to remove their enemies, in the process of which more bystanders are hurt. This is only a recipe for making more enemies.

For example, creation of Hezbollah was a direct byproduct of the occupation of Lebanon by Israel in order to remove PLO, some twenty years ago. While, depending on your moral criteria, this might have been justified, in the long run, it left Israel with a stronger enemy to deal with. Is there any question that the children who are raised under the Israeli bombardment will grow up to make the next, may be more brutal reincarnation of Hezbollah? Of course, many of the Israelis who have to deal with this problem are yet to be born, and thus cannot impact the undoubtedly high approval rating of the current Israeli prime minister.

The analogy of Iraq may again be used to predict what may happen in the next few months if the hostilities continue at this rate. There is no question that the US has made many enemies in Iraq, most likely more than the new friends it might have made. However, most Americans have the luxury of living on the other side of the globe, where most of these enemies cannot harm them. Unfortunately, most Israelis don’t enjoy this luxury when it comes to their newfound enemies.

Comments
Armin at July 21, 2006 11:38 PM [permalink]:

Dear Niayesh,

Generally a nice article, thank you.

A democracy is not beautiful nor acceptale without ethics. Even if we accept that Israel is a democracy in absence of the original land owners it has kicked out during the last decades, it is surely an unethical democracy, killing MANY civilians including kids. The media as a whole is sadly biased to the Israel's side and what we hear is almost an Israeli version of the story!

Yes, violence will not eventually bring peace for Israelis, nor for the others.

Best Wishes

Craig at July 22, 2006 12:02 AM [permalink]:

However, most Americans have the luxury of living on the other side of the globe, where most of these enemies cannot harm them.

No we don't. One Iranian nuclear weapon could destroy our largest city and kill 10 million Americans.

Don't forget what this is all about.

Also, you seem to overlook the amount of American blood Hezbollah has on it's hands. I have not. I lost frineds to Hezbollah in 1983. My country has not forgotten who Hezbollah is either. And we have not forgotten who Hezbollah's masters are. There will be an accounting. You and all Iranians will eventually have to deicde whether you want to stand with your criminal government, or whether you want to stand apart from it.

As for "mass murdering" - Israel has quite a ways to go before it has killed as many Lebanese as Yasser Arafat did. Quite some ways to go.

Unfortunately, most Israelis don’t enjoy this luxury when it comes to their newfound enemies.

Newfound enemies, is it? Which of Israel's current enemies is new?

We will stand with Israel. Even if we stand *alone* with Israel. Their enemies are also ours. And I can't think of better company. Or better allies.

Where are Iran's allies? Will anyone stand with Iran, when the accounting comes?

Armin at July 22, 2006 12:45 AM [permalink]:

"One Iranian nuclear weapon could destroy our largest city and kill 10 million Americans."

- We all know which country is offensive and which country has killed tens of thousands of civilians by atomic weapons. Which country has Iran initially attacked during the last decades?


"Where are Iran's allies? Will anyone stand with Iran, when the accounting comes?"

- In this world, ally politicians come from money not honesty.

"American blood Hezbollah has on it's hands"

- Were they civilians? What would you do with our troops if they came to US to meddle in your afairs? Why do you overlook the civilians killed by your government and by Israelis? Every government including Iranian government may have had crimes which are condemned, but the amount of crimes of Iranian government is not one in several thousands of crimes of US government and choosing between them is easy for ethical people who know the facts and numbers (not for greedy politicians and people only hearing one special versions of the stories). How many civilians have US government killed during the last century or the last three decades? How many have Iranians killed? The numbers differ so vastly that justifications regarding situations seem funy, let alone logical!

Craig at July 22, 2006 03:01 AM [permalink]:

Armin,

- We all know which country is offensive

Yes. We do. We know which country is causing the death and destruction in Lebanon (and Gaza) right now, with it's offensive proxy war. We all do. You. Me. And the rest of the world. Somebody will answer for it, sooner or later.

- In this world, ally politicians come from money not honesty.

Interesting. Iran has money. Why doesn't Iran have allies?

- Were they civilians?

Not only civilians, but diplomats, with diplomatic immunity. Hezbollah car bombed the US embassy in Beirut not once, but twice. Once in 1982 and once in 1983. Most of Hezbollah's victims have been innocent civilians. College professors, journalists, tourists.... Hezbollah makes no difference in who they kill to serve their masters in Iran.

If you refer to the Barracks bombing which killed 241 Americans on 23 OCT 1983, they were peacekeepers. The fact that Hezbollah massacred peacekeepers will be remembered as well. Lebanon will get no peacekeepers this time... the game is playing out to the bitter end. Iran will also not recieve peacekeepers, if the need should ever arise. You'll be on your own. No peacekeepers for the murderers of peace.

In the meantime, while your government continues to exist: be thankful the rest of the world doesn't treat Iranians as Iranians treat everyone else. Your diplomats would all be dead or in prison, and Iranians couldn't go anywhere in the world without being subject to being held hostage.

Ben at July 22, 2006 11:46 AM [permalink]:
Niyayesh Afshordi, I feel there are some issues from your article that must be addressed. Before I attend to deal with them I would like to state that this war is between good and evil, simple as that, no cliches intended. Israel, a nation which desire to live peacefully is fighting existential war against people that desire to murder her citizens not because of the Israeli-Arab conflict, but because of a murderous religious ideology of Islam. Hizbollah, a terrorist organization fights and provokes Israel with no justification and is playing the role of the Iranian extension in our region. If Israel surrender herself to the extortion of Hizbollah that would be a precedent that will mark the end of the western free society since this will give rise to more extortionist actions by other Muslim terrorists that will have their way in europe and the U.S, forcing their will by using terror just as Muhammad ordered them to do in quite a few verses which regard the infidels. Most of the Hizbollah crimes against Israel are ideologically oriented from what Islam teaches about Jews. They have nothing to do with the general Arab-Israeli conflict over territory and the bulk of that ideology is coming from the religious islamic Iran that already declared what they want to do with Israel. Lebanon is playing a double game of whining about their sovereignty being breached by Israel in the latest actions but Lebanon shouldn't have let a terror organization settle on her southern border in the first place! Lebanon should have carried out the UN security council resolution 1559 long ago and PUT HER ARMY ALONG THE BORDER WITH ISRAEL! The fact that Lebanon didn't do that shows she does not practice her sovereignty, It shows that Lebanon is just another country like many in the world that didn't earn their independence and she seems to not deserve it. Now to the nonsense you said, which I wish to address: 1. "Israel has one of the most advanced armies in the world, meaning that they can surgically strike the Hezbollah targets, while keeping down civilian casualties to an absolute minimum." It's a bit hard to keep civilian casualties to minimum when Hizbollah are using civilians as human shields, when Hizbollah place road blockes in the few roards that weren't bombed, intentionally preventing civilians to exit the south. It's hard to keep civilian casualties to minimum when Hizbollah uses their homes to store rockets and launch them, it's hard when Hizbollah uses the main civilian roads, airports and seaports to transfer more ammunition and other war supplies. The civilian buildings that Israel bombarded were in Shia Muslim neighborhoods which are the human and logistic infrastructure of the Hizbollah and the public that supports them. These were the homes of the Hizbollah leaders and their families. Their offices and rooms of operation were also there but there is also one more thing that these buildings were used for and thats for storage of Katyusha rockets and other weaponry. The Hizbollah soldiers also used the roofs of these buildings to launch the missiles toward Israel. Israel has decided to bomb these buildings as a pure strategic action to eliminate the storage they held, to remove optional missile launch locations, to destroy the Hizbollah homes and offices and hurt its native infrastructure. Israel has dropped leaflets warning of the coming attack in each location in order to minimize the civilian casualties and allow them to evacuate the area ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
Armin at July 22, 2006 05:50 PM [permalink]:

Craig,

1. You again ignore the statstics regarding offences of the countries. If we want to talk from proxies, US record is much more dark than most/all of the other countries.

2. Iran's money (GDP) is about one fiftieth of US which means politicians support US.

3. "peacekeeper" is only a journalist name given to those soldiers to decrease the shame and fool people like you. They were soldiers with arms and with evil politicians behind them. If hezbollah has killed civilians in front of embassy, that's another matter I do not support, but you can count how many civilians they have killed and compare that to civilians killed by Israel (or US). They have killed much much less.

4. Iranians threat nothing but Israel's crimes, and in this case the threat is indirect. Do not extend your (Israel's) problem to the other countries. We have no probem with them. Statistics show that Iran has been among the most peaceful countries, in contrary to warmonger US and Israel.

5. You surprisingly say: "be thankful the rest of the world doesn't treat Iranians as Iranians treat everyone else. Your diplomats would all be dead or in prison, and Iranians couldn't go anywhere in the world without being subject to being held hostage."

- This much brainwash is astonishing, so according to your analogy the other diplomats having something to do with Iran should have been dead and other people can't come to Iran!!! While we have been even peaceful enough to release your spies!!! Statistics highly opposes your claims.

Statistics (e.g. the number of civilians killed) says: Iran has been among the most peaceful countries, not US, not Israel. Propaganda is useless against the facts.


And one word to the islamophobic Ben who does not understand the peaceful religion of Islam, nor its respect for Jews: just answer how many civilians each side have killed to find out who is evil and who is terrorist. Some mistakes aside, hezbollah is defending thir country from psychomad criminals who attack civilians, including kids and women, because of arresting two soldiers. How can you even think about talking of human rights when you do such crimes? Terrorism has a simple definition: Those who kill civilians. The number one terrorist is US, followed by Israel. Terrorism is forbidden in Islam.

A Reader at July 22, 2006 05:53 PM [permalink]:

Terrorist has a simple definition: Those who kill civilians. The number one terrorist is US, followed by Israel. Terrorism is forbidden in Islam.

A Reader at July 22, 2006 05:57 PM [permalink]:

(evidently not talking about normal court issues)

Armin at July 22, 2006 06:03 PM [permalink]:

Even Noam Chomsky, the number one intellectual in US, regretfully anounces what he calls extraordinary violence of US government in its history. Good that you have some people to help you understand this simple fact under propaganda and blind nationalism!

Ron at July 22, 2006 07:45 PM [permalink]:

Terrorism is not the killing of civilians. It is the deliberate targeting of civilians. Sadly, the minds of some Readers cannot grasp this not so subtle difference.

AIS at July 22, 2006 07:57 PM [permalink]:

Dear Ron, Ben and Craig,

I persoanlly think this article is not really worth responding to. It comes from a particular mind set. A mind set that is very well known to those who have lived in Iran and comes directly from a certain core.
I think, as long as this glorification and support of a murdering terror group like Hizbollah is only in words it needs and defintely deserves no reaction.

Ron at July 22, 2006 08:09 PM [permalink]:

AIS,
Agreed.

"There is nothing new under the sun."

-Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes) 1:9

Craig at July 23, 2006 12:12 AM [permalink]:

Ron,

It is the deliberate targeting of civilians

I'd say it's the deliberate victimization of the innocent, for ideological gain.

It's the nature of the act and the motivation both that make the difference between simple crime and terrorism.

I do agree with "A Reader" though - it is prohibted by Islam. Unless Islam is satanic. Because the God of Abraham definately doesn't murder, rape, kidnapping, torture, etc done in His name. Nope. Not my God, that isn't.

AIS, good advice I guess. This is the first time I've adressed what's going on in Lebanon on an Iranian blog. As I recall, I pointed out to Armin some months ago how much of a problem Hezbollah was for Iran when it comes to US relations. He didn't believ me then, he doesn't believe me now... maybe he'll believe me when all surviving members of the IRI are on trail for terrorism at some future date.

But nah... who am I kidding? He'll just be bitching and moaning about unjust prosectutions.

Sadaf at July 23, 2006 12:39 AM [permalink]:

Israel is a newly-founded country and it has its own sovereignty and defense system. in case an external terrorizing force, Hezbollah in this instance, violates and threatens or challenges this national security and defense structure, it's the task of Israelis to face that threat. Israel rightfully bought the lands in Israel and gradually formed a governance structure and a nation-state for the Jews. it's a totally legitimate government, and recognized by the International community, the United Nations, etc. Hezbollah on the other hand is based on bunch of scattered religious and ideologist fanatics who have no way for making their presence magnified in the field except by kidnapping soldiers or terrorist activities.

Ron at July 23, 2006 01:01 AM [permalink]:

Craig,

The problem here is moral clarity. Some people seem to have their head stuck so far up their ass that they they've confused right for wrong and evil for good. I'm not sure what to call this phenomenon, but it seems to be epidemic these days. Or maybe it was always there, but recent developments (9/11, the internet) have made it more noticeable. In any case, AIS is right in saying that it's a waste of time to argue against this point of view, but I'm still interested in knowing how it works. Who knows, there might be a Nobel Prize for the one who can cure it :)

A Reader at July 23, 2006 10:14 AM [permalink]:

Armin, did you forget the number of civilians killed by the Iranian governement? The number of women raped and killed in prisons? Sure the US killed a lot of civilians, but do not forget the number of civilians killed by the Iranian governement from the revolution to nowadays. The number of people criminalized and jailed for things you are free to do in most other countries. And for Iran being one of the most peaceful countries, this must be a joke. Sure Iran never had the power to start a "regular" war, but what is with the support of different militia'S throughout the mid east, destabilizing most countries? Is this what you call a peaceful country? What is with the rethorics of Ahmedinejad? Do you think it helped solving the problems of the region in any way?

Ben at July 23, 2006 10:50 AM [permalink]:

Craig,
Muslim textbooks teach the ABC of violence, they are the road map to turning our world to a living hell where infidels are second class citizens that suffer terror on behalf of Muslims and assumed criminals are beheaded or various parts of their bodies are cut off.
Islam teach its acceptable to rape children and to plunder, to torture and to maim, to discriminate women and non-muslims.
Islam not only permit to terrorize, there are explicit instructions provided by Islam that encorage its followers to practice terrorism and also how to practice it.
If the mythological Satan from christian faith ever existed, he must've been involved in the creation of Islam for it is truly an evil 'religion'.

Brave New World at July 23, 2006 01:20 PM [permalink]:

1) Kill one innocent civillian and you are a criminal
2) Kill ten and you are a terrorist
3) Kill 340 inncocent civillians and you are a decorated war hero.

Sadaf at July 23, 2006 03:25 PM [permalink]:

aside from Islam( since I don't really wanna go to religion that much), Iranian culture is very belittered. the very culture of the ordinary iranians is void of democratic practices, respect for the individualism and independence, and an extreme materialism and sense of rivalry. such traits are very vivid not only in the whole community but also in every family unit in some respects. for Iran to overcome its current problems, I think, the United States as a hegemon, should not count very much on internal democratization by the Iranian civil society or even the indifferent self-hating expatriate Iranian community abroad. I believe that the United States should try to keep up, inevitably, with the militiary operations in the middle east and eliminate and demolish the terrorist groups as solidly as it can.

Ben at July 23, 2006 09:31 PM [permalink]:

4) kill yourself with a bomb and you're a martyr
5) cut off people heads and you're a saint
6) rape 6 year old girl and you're a prophet

Alan K. Henderson at July 24, 2006 01:08 AM [permalink]:

If peace is to exist in Israel, the first thing that must be accomplished is the destruction of all terrorist organizations that engage in violence as part of a quest for the destruction of Israel. How should Israel accomplish this task?

Mehrdad H. at July 24, 2006 02:01 AM [permalink]:

Dear Craig, Ron, and Ben,

You have not yet answered Armin's question regarding the statistical comparison of the offences of the countries!

Dear Ron, as you may be interested in "recent developments (9/11, the internet)", please have a look at the following page:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14069.htm

Mehrdad H. at July 24, 2006 03:15 AM [permalink]:

Here is one more "recent development" !!!!:

http://fromisraeltolebanon.info/

Craig at July 24, 2006 03:59 AM [permalink]:

You have not yet answered Armin's question regarding the statistical comparison of the offences of the countries!

That's because his question was stupid :P

Craig at July 24, 2006 04:03 AM [permalink]:

By the way, Mehrdad, I didn't load your links either! Just so you know :O

The US has been being bombarded by propagandists a lot better than you for 3 years now. What are you going to do to us? Iran is the only country in eth world more hated than the US right now. Not an enviable position for you! You don't have any superpower status to conuter-balance all that hatred. That means, you're in a world of hurt.

Mehrdad H. at July 24, 2006 05:35 AM [permalink]:

Craig, have you ever thought there is something wrong with your country that has made it the focus of such critical bombardments for the past 3 years?!

I, personally, believe Iranian government has been wrong in many instances and thus deserves being hated. However, as long as you consider statistics stupid, I prefer not continue this discussion with you.

ghasem at July 24, 2006 06:45 AM [permalink]:

On the historical side, the Israel-Palestin-Lebanon conflicts is due to the dispute on lands and territories. It does not have any thing to do with the clash of Muslims, Jews, Cristians or whatever ideology you may recall. Generalising this conflict to the problem of religions or clash of civilisations is not true. Perhaps such a generalisation is misleading to resolve the problem. This means that we, as the external observers,
1) Should see and understand the right of the Palestinian refugees to go back to the Palestinian territories.
2) Should protest that the state of Israel has occupated some parts of the Palestinian territories,
3) Should protest against any rhetorical attack to the state of Israel by presidents of other countries.
4) Should protest against the state of Israel when she rhetorically declars the third world war.

I think that it is not hard to single out some sentences supporting violence in ANY BOOK which had been scripted thousands years ago. Isn't that preferred if the discussion remains on how we could find some solutions to resolve the dilemma?

ghasem at July 24, 2006 06:45 AM [permalink]:

On the historical side, the Israel-Palestin-Lebanon conflicts is due to the dispute on lands and territories. It does not have any thing to do with the clash of Muslims, Jews, Cristians or whatever ideology you may recall. Generalising this conflict to the problem of religions or clash of civilisations is not true. Perhaps such a generalisation is misleading to resolve the problem. This means that we, as the external observers,
1) Should see and understand the right of the Palestinian refugees to go back to the Palestinian territories.
2) Should protest that the state of Israel has occupated some parts of the Palestinian territories,
3) Should protest against any rhetorical attack to the state of Israel by presidents of other countries.
4) Should protest against the state of Israel when she rhetorically declars the third world war.

I think that it is not hard to single out some sentences supporting violence in ANY BOOK which had been scripted thousands years ago. Isn't that preferred if the discussion remains on how we could find some solutions to resolve the dilemma?

Brave New World at July 24, 2006 07:26 AM [permalink]:

Ben,

Thanks for completing the equations. I agree with your additions and given your numbering, it seems you agree with mine.

Ben at July 24, 2006 10:50 AM [permalink]:

Brave New World,

Dont try to steal my consent.
The three sentences we both wrote are rhetorical when they stand by themselves and that was my point, however, mine are supported by a long comment that came before them. Yours are not.

All of Hizbollah fighters are civilians and there is no way to kill them without being accused of killing civilians. Technically they are and damned they be.

Ben at July 24, 2006 11:09 AM [permalink]:

Brave New World,

Another thing that I'd like to add is that Hizbollah use Lebanese as human shield by hiding ammunition in civilian homes, by firing rockets from their homes and by blocking roads, preventing them to flee.

Craig at July 24, 2006 11:56 AM [permalink]:

Mehrdad,

Craig, have you ever thought there is something wrong with your country that has made it the focus of such critical bombardments for the past 3 years?!

yeah. We're not letting ourselves be murdered anymore without fighting back. The horror!!

I, personally, believe Iranian government has been wrong in many instances and thus deserves being hated.

You're damn right about that.

However, as long as you consider statistics stupid

I don't consider statsitics to be stupid. I consider people who misuse statistics to "prove" ridiculous assertions to be stupid :P

I prefer not continue this discussion with you.

Fine by me! I don't remember initiating the silliness of comparing the US to Iran. I was perfectly happy ignoring Armin's absurdities.

Craig at July 24, 2006 12:02 PM [permalink]:

ghasem,

On the historical side, the Israel-Palestin-Lebanon conflicts is due to the dispute on lands and territories.

But we aren't talking about that. We're talking about Hezbollah, Iran and the United States. At least, that's what I am talking about. None of the things you mentioned is going to help my country destroy Hezbollah, Syria and the IRI. Also, none of your suggestions will help Hezbollah, Syria and the IRI destroy Israel and/or the United States.

We need to be realistic about who the combatanats are and what their objectives are. Lebanon has nothing to do with it, and neither do Palestinian Territories.

ghasem at July 24, 2006 12:40 PM [permalink]:

Craig:
1- So you agree that the main problem is lands and territories. It is not due to the crash of the ideologies.

2- Why do you try to involve Iran and other countries? The goverment of Iran was supporting Hezbollah before its recent attack to Israel. There is no proof -and I think that no acceptable logical reasoning- that Iran is going to benefit from this war. I do not see if US is involved in this conflict, I mean at least directly.

Craig at July 24, 2006 01:16 PM [permalink]:

ghasem,

1- So you agree that the main problem is lands and territories. It is not due to the crash of the ideologies.

No, I don't agree. I think it's about Iran waging ideological proxy war, entirely unrelated to the territorial claims of Palestinians. Or of Lebanese, for that matter.

2- Why do you try to involve Iran and other countries? The goverment of Iran was supporting Hezbollah before its recent attack to Israel.

Yes. Iran created Hezbollah. Iran has been in control directly or indirectly of Hezbollah since it's inception in 1982.

That's kinda why I "involve" Iran! Who the hell do you think Hezbollah is working for? The Lebanese government!?

There is no proof -and I think that no acceptable logical reasoning- that Iran is going to benefit from this war.

I don't think Iran will benefit from this war. I think Iran has made a fatal mistake.

But, Iran has been *threatening* to wage war on Israel through it's Arab proxies for over a year now. When somebody threatens to do something, and then they do it, that's pretty good proof, in my humble opinion!

I do not see if US is involved in this conflict, I mean at least directly.

Not yet. Soon, I hope. The target of the US will not be Hezbollah, though. Nor will it be Syria. I think the proper method of disarming and defanging Hezbollah is to go after their masters.

The US has been involved directly in the past though. Hezbollah has committed many acts of terrorism directly against the US, at the behest of Iran. Hezbollah is what qualifies Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism. And the US is formally at war with international terrorist groups and their sponsors.

The IRI might have survived if it had abandoned it's nuclear program. I don't think there is any chance of that outcome, any more. The regime's days are numbered.

Mehrdad H. at July 24, 2006 01:20 PM [permalink]:

Craig,

"yeah. We're not letting ourselves be murdered anymore without fighting back. The horror!!"

Well, this is exactly what Hizbollah is doing, too. However, I believe both Hizbollah and you are equally wrong if you think you can stop the violence in this way. The soaring number of Americans killed during the past three years, and since you have come up with the novel idea of murdering in return for murder, has proved this.


"That's because his question was stupid :P"

Mr. Superpower!, arguing that something is stupid but not giving any reasons for one's assertion is even more stupid than a stupid argument.

Craig at July 24, 2006 01:34 PM [permalink]:

Mehrdad,

Well, this is exactly what Hizbollah is doing, too. However, I believe both Hizbollah and you are equally wrong if you think you can stop the violence in this way.

The only correct way to counter violence is with violence. What would you do if I punched you in the face? Ask me not to do it again? Or would you run away? What if I could run faster than you? What if I let you run away but then turned my attentions to your family? You would rely on appealing to my humanitarian instintcs, if I was a predatory thug completely lacking in anything like compassion?

Sorry, man. That's another silly statement. I apologize for using such a graphic illustration of the absurdity of this idea, but I've been accused by you of calling ideas "stupid" without explaining why.

The soaring number of Americans killed during the past three years, and since you have come up with the novel idea of murdering in return for murder, has proved this.

Soaring numbers of Americans killed? 2500 in 3 years?

Lets see. 1000 troops killed per year. 2,500,000 troops in the US military.

In 2497 years the US military will be destroyed.

More Americans were killed in 1 day in 2001 than in 3 years of war.

ghasem at July 24, 2006 02:47 PM [permalink]:

Craig:
"I think it's about Iran waging ideological proxy war, entirely unrelated to the territorial claims of Palestinians. Or of Lebanese, for that matter."
The international comunity has accepted that there is a body of the land for Palestinian. They call that body as the "Occupied Palestinian territories". For example look at terminology here [+]. Therefore I afraid that I have to inform you what you are refering to as "some claim" are infact ratified and accepted international facts.

"Yes. Iran created Hezbollah. Iran has been in control directly or indirectly of Hezbollah since it's inception in 1982."
1- Iran did not created what you are facing with at this time. The Hezbollah was a direct consequnce of occupying Lebonan and the quest of the people of Lebonan for something to force back Israel to its border.
2- I think from the moment that it would be proven that Hezbollah is controled by any other forgien states then Hezbollah will not be popular in Lebonan any more. If you have proofs that Hezbollah is a poppet of other states then share them with people of Lebonan instead of bombording them.


"Iran has been *threatening* to wage war on Israel through it's Arab proxies for over a year now. When somebody threatens to do something, and then they do it, that's pretty good proof, in my humble opinion!"
The doctorian of Iran, as has been approved by her leader and has been mentioned so many times is not to erease or to fight with the state of Israel. It is to support by words and politically the rights of Palestinian people. I agree that there is a controvercy between what Ahmady nejhad talks about and the iranian ironic policy in last decade. Ahmadynegad words might be understood but could not justified by couting how many times Isreal has threatened to attack and to invide Iran.


"The target of the US will not be Hezbollah, though. Nor will it be Syria. I think the proper method of disarming and defanging Hezbollah is to go after their masters"
I am afraid that the target of US is peace. I am repeating myself. Hezbollah does not have any master otherwise it could not had been so successful. What it had was some foriegn supperters. What it gains every moment is more and fan in Lebonan more and more she is destructed.

"Hezbollah is what qualifies Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism. And the US is formally at war with international terrorist groups and their sponsors."
There is a big difference between Hezbollah and a terrorist group like Alghade. However many countries, including many European countries, have not included the name of Hezbollah in the list of terrorist groups. I have not searched for it, please correct me if you know that I am not right. Thus I may conclude that your remarks that Hezbollah is a terrorist group is far premature. Note that I do disapprove the blind murdering by Hezbollah and also I do disapprove the mass murdering by Israel. Are you sure that the acts of Israel agianst civilians might qualify her for being a terrorist?

"The IRI might have survived if it had abandoned it's nuclear program. I don't think there is any chance of that outcome, any more. The regime's days are numbered."
There is no regime in Iran. There is a goverment elected by the Iranian people. You could think whatever you wish. I respect you that you are thinking. However let us think more ;)

Ben at July 24, 2006 03:24 PM [permalink]:

Behold, the value Iran has to their own peoples lives:
"Teams of Iranian suicide bombers were heading for Lebanon’s war zone last night in a terrifying bid to spark meltdown in the Middle East" , “They have received adequate training to fight beside their Lebanese brothers. They will identify Zionist targets and attack them with actions of martyrdom.”
Ah.. Islam..What a peaceful religion, it values human lives so much..

The article says they trained to do this.. I just dont understand how you can train on killing yourself.
well maybe only the instructor showed them how to do this like Here: Muslim Teacher Blows Himself Up In Class

Ben at July 24, 2006 03:29 PM [permalink]:

Now I ask you a question..
what land belonging to Iran has Israel ever occupied or is occupying ?!?

Craig at July 24, 2006 04:00 PM [permalink]:

Ghasem,

There is a big difference between Hezbollah and a terrorist group like Alghade.

Yes. Hezbollah has state backing (Iran/Syria). It's better organized, better funded, has better weaponry. It's potentially more dangerous than Al Qaeda.

Prior to September 11th 2001, Hezbollah was responsible for more terrorism against Americans and more deaths of Americans than Al Qaeda was.

I'm not going to discuss your revisionist history re: Hezbollah. I was there when Hezbollah was born. Were you? If so, then you're telling lies. If not, then you are still telling lies, although you might actually believe them to be true :D

I'm also not going to discuss the "merits" of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

I really do not wihs to discuss history. It is what it is - the history is why we are, where we are. The issue at hand is what happens next.

Mehrdad H. at July 24, 2006 05:32 PM [permalink]:

Craig,

"The only correct way to counter violence is with violence. What would you do if I punched you in the face?"

Does everyone in your country believe in this? Do all people in the civilized west treat each other in this way?

"Soaring numbers of Americans killed? 2500 in 3 years?
Let's see. 1000 troops killed per year. 2,500,000 troops in the US military.
In 2497 years the US military will be destroyed.
More Americans were killed in 1 day in 2001 than in 3 years of war."


Well, I see you are getting used to statistics little by little! Let me remind you that more Japanese were killed in one day in Hiroshima than in 30 years in the USA.

However, I still believe the approach to kill as many as you can in revenge for those you have lost is going nowhere, no matter how many soldiers you have in your army.

Mehrdad H. at July 24, 2006 05:55 PM [permalink]:

"What would you do if I punched you in the face?"


Watch and listen to this, not right to the point though:

http://www.firozshroff.com/Sand%20and%20Stone%20.pps

Craig at July 25, 2006 03:20 AM [permalink]:

Does everyone in your country believe in this? Do all people in the civilized west treat each other in this way?

Yes. That's what keeps us civilized. I hope you are watching events in Lebanon closely. That's the fate Iran is heading for. Full speed ahead.

Speaking of which, 3000 Americans were killed on Day One at the battle of Tarawa. More than in 3 years in Iraq. And that's not even the only time in WW II that the US lost more troops in a day than we've lost in 5 years fighting the war on terror.

300,000 American troops were killed in 4 years in WW II. It would take 100 years in Iraq to match that number.

And the US had some of the lightest casualties in that war. The Soviets had 9 million soldiers killed.

Don't try to frighten anybody throwing numbers around. We can play this game literally forever, against the kind of oppostion we've been facing.

Unless Iran gets nukes. Which is why Iran will not get nukes. It's just common sense. You know what that is, right?

Craig at July 25, 2006 03:24 AM [permalink]:

By the way, Mehrdad, since you like statistics so much... how many Iranians died fighting Iraq? Comparing yoyr losses vs Iraq to US losses vs Iraq might be a pretty good statistical indicator of likely future outcomes, wouldn't you say?

Craig at July 25, 2006 03:32 AM [permalink]:

And another thing! :P

I did notice your veiled threat that a single nuke could inflict more damage on the US than it has ever sufferred before. You spell your own doom, with talk like that.

Apparrently, Ahmadinejad is not the only Iranian who wants to see his country laid waste.

ghasem at July 25, 2006 04:31 AM [permalink]:

Craig:
"Hezbollah has state backing (Iran/Syria). It's better organized, better funded, has better weaponry."
This does not prove that Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation. The European Union does not list Hezbollah as a "terrorist organization". Have you ever asked yourself why?


"I was there when Hezbollah was born. Were you?"
No, I was not there. But I used to read and listen to the stories of all sides of any conflict.


"I'm also not going to discuss the "merits" of the Islamic Republic of Iran."
Fair enough. Also do not curse Iran.


"I really do not wihs to discuss history. It is what it is - the history is why we are, where we are. The issue at hand is what happens next."
The issue is what strategy brings a long lasting peace. Morality and any long lasting peace requires applying the same sets of the international rules to all parties involved in the conflict.

Mehrdad H. at July 25, 2006 04:41 AM [permalink]:

Craig,

I would like to repeat my previous statement that the approach to kill as many as you can in revenge for those you have lost is going to nowhere. All the statistics you provided do prove this. Did Japan, Russia, Iraq, Iran, or Hizbollah become civilized by killing others? Nor will do the USA.


"I did notice your veiled threat that a single nuke could inflict more damage on the US than it has ever suffered before."

I am afraid but I have to say you were absolutely wrong in guessing my attitude towards a nuke Iran.


"Apparrently, Ahmadinejad is not the only Iranian who wants to see his country laid waste."

…and, Bush is not the only American who wants to see his country laid waste, either. I am against both of them.

Craig at July 25, 2006 04:24 PM [permalink]:

Ghasem,

This does not prove that Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation. The European Union does not list Hezbollah as a "terrorist organization". Have you ever asked yourself why?

You must be mistaking me for somebody who cares about what EUropeans think :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_847

Germany released the only one of those hezbollah hijackers to have been arrested, last year. He has since been put back on the FBI's most wanted list. He has not yet been tried in an American court for the murder of passenger Robert Dean Stethem, the American killed and thrown out onto the tarmac in Beirut, live on television.

If you want more, Hezbollah is charged ith hundreds of acts of international terrorism.

Do a google search :)

But this is not a topic of discussion, as far as I'm concerned. Hezbollah must be destroyed, for their crimes, and Hezbollah's masters must be destroyed.

The issue is what strategy brings a long lasting peace.

America is at war. We do not want peace. We want to win. Wars typically end when one side or the other loses. Victory is the path to peace, during a war.

I would like to repeat my previous statement that the approach to kill as many as you can in revenge for those you have lost is going to nowhere.

The object is not to extract revenge. The objective is to end terrorism. Just like Nazism was ended. And in case you don't know this, Americans have a hatred for terrorists that exceeds any hatred we have ever had for any other enemy, including the Nazis and the Japanese. And Iran is the leading state sponsor of international terrorism.

…and, Bush is not the only American who wants to see his country laid waste, either. I am against both of them.

I hope your self-proclaimed neutrality is of some comfort to you in the future.

Mehrdad H. at July 25, 2006 05:32 PM [permalink]:

"I hope your self-proclaimed neutrality is of some comfort to you in the future."

Sorry, I am not neutral. I am against Ahmadinejad and Bush who both think they can win only when the other loses. I am in favor of those who are looking for a win-win situation. I am in favor of those who feel sympathetic both to the Japanese who were killed in Hiroshima and to the Americans who lost their lives in 9/11. Only reactionary Fascists can ignore one side completely and reserve the right to win for themselves.

An Iranian Student (AIS) at July 25, 2006 09:02 PM [permalink]:

Ah Mehrdad,

Why don't you shut up?! We all got your nonsense "logic". Give it (and us) a rest.
Go play with some candies. Good boy.

AIS at July 25, 2006 11:09 PM [permalink]:

Now enough nonsense:
An article that says it all as it is (for a change.)

Ghasem at July 26, 2006 05:16 AM [permalink]:

Only for the clarification: The European Union list of terrorists includes several individuals of Lebanese origin, but makes no reference to Hezbullah. [ Look at the end of section 4.1 of the EU's relations with Lebanon]

Ben at July 26, 2006 06:02 AM [permalink]:

Ghasem,

Thats because Europeans are asleep.
Don't worry tho, they will wake up, sooner or later.

Probably later.

Ghasem at July 26, 2006 07:02 AM [permalink]:

I have talked with many Europeans. Indeed many of the them have been evaluating and are evaluating the policy of Israel toward the Palestinans in the Occupied Palestinans territories as explicit and obvious examples of voilation of Human rights. Some declare in a clear way that the state of Isreal has not fulfilled the duties which the Fourth Geneva Convention imposes on the Occupying Power in the Occupied Territories.


Far a few people, may be no one, support Hezbullah acts. However most of the people whom I talked to consider the recent attack of Israel as a collective punishment which is prohibited by human rights and humanitarian norms. They do not support Isreal at all. Some critisize the way that US is supporting Isreal.

I do not allow myelf to call these people as asleep people. They are so active and very independent.

Ben at July 26, 2006 07:43 AM [permalink]:

Ghasem,

You seem to have missed my point, maybe because I wasn't specific enough. In any such case, these Europeans that you mentioned aren't asleep. They are just blind radical leftists and I didn't talk of them, save them for the margins where they belong. I talked about Europeans as a whole.

Ghasem at July 26, 2006 07:52 AM [permalink]:

Ben: Some of them are leftists but no one is blind or radical. Every one is rational. However when it comes to the human rights then all agree that the act of Israel is in clear voilation with the human rights and humanitarian norms.

hamid at July 26, 2006 01:32 PM [permalink]:

I think this was a beutiful article from beautiful mind.

Ben at July 26, 2006 03:34 PM [permalink]:

Ghasem,

You can continue arguing about the current state of mind of europeans all you want but this isn't an argument about an opinion that I have. It's about an event which is inevitable to happen because native europeans share the same desire for freedom as the americans and israelis, and the likes of you have been exploiting that for immoral ideologies and agendas for far too long on european soil.

Regarding the "human rights", you and your friends should attend your attention to what's going on in Iran rather than in Israel.
It is an Iranian court that sentenced raped women to death by stoning for being raped, it is an Iranian court that sentenced a man to have his eyes gouged out in a surgical operation and another to have his limbs cut off.
You and your european friends, have no moral authority to judge Israel actions against her enemies which don't mind about "human rights" themselves, and are killing and maiming innocent Israelis on the one hand and are using their own innocent civilians as human shields on the other.


Mehrdad H. at July 26, 2006 03:37 PM [permalink]:

Dear "An Impolite Student"-AIS,

Are you the representative of "all" or you just liked to be since you were a kid!?!

mark at July 26, 2006 04:49 PM [permalink]:

Here is a story link for those who are curious about what the US and Israel have in store for Iran.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/10962352/iran_the_next_war/1

Ron at July 26, 2006 07:49 PM [permalink]:

It's a great article, AIS, Thanks

It really articulates how many people abdicate their responsibility to make moral judgement, an example of which is people posting here who count corpses on each side to see who is in the right.

AIS at July 27, 2006 02:29 AM [permalink]:

Mehrdad I thought you had said you preferred not continue this discussion, but it seemed that was your way of not answering points where you had no answers to give.
Anyway, you have a point about not speaking for everyone. So here I publically ask anyone who is still deprived of the the blessing of your rock solid logic to SPEAK OUT and ask for enlightenment.
And don't bring my childhood into this. I was a nasty kid. Nothing the greates logical mind after Aristotle should waste time with.

AIS at July 27, 2006 02:39 AM [permalink]:

Ron,

yes it is a great article. Mellanie Phillips writes very well and always to the point. I read her all the time.
What I lked most about this article was the fact that it was the only one I have seen to have noticed the catastrophic impact of the Western media bias on people from the Middle East and the Islamic world. I see it very clearly among iranians for instance. Nobody, not even the hardliners, takes the official IRI media seriously. But many still fully trust the BBC or the Guardian, and this is what is being fed to them.
And that is just despicable. Have you for instance seen the video of how Snow of Channel Four treated Israeli Ambassador after the beginning of Gaza bombings? ( here ) crazy isn't it? Where is the West going to?!

Indeed the most absurd repeated mantra is this comparison of the fatalities of the two sides. One wonders how many Israelis should have died as well for these people to be satisfied, for their pereverted sense of justice to be satiated?
It is mind-paralysis believe me. The moral side of their minds is so hampered it just doesn't function. believe me.

Mehrdad H. at July 27, 2006 03:12 AM [permalink]:

Ron,

Counting corpses on each side is an accurate indicator of who is in the right. However, the only difference between you and me is that you believe the side which has inflicted more is in the right, while I think exactly the opposite.


Craig,

The following is a proof that the black-and-white approach of "“you’re either with us or against us” is such a naive one.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5211840.stm

"Iranian dissident Akbar Ganji declined to meet White House officials during a visit to the US, he has told the BBC."

"In a speech last week in Washington DC, he also criticized US policy in Iraq, saying: "You cannot bring democracy to a country by attacking it"."

"He added that the war in Iraq had helped Islamic fundamentalism and hampered the democracy movement in the region."


I am glad, however, that such a mentality is hitting a new low record of 31% even in the USA, let alone the rest of the world.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-08-bush-approval_x.htm


… and the over 60 comments posted for this article well shows the support of "all" for somebody's perception that "this article is not really worth responding to."

Mehrdad H. at July 27, 2006 04:40 AM [permalink]:

Mark,

Here is what Iran had long before the USA or Israel were born:


The First Charter of the Rights of Nations

Cyrus, The Great, 539 B.C.
Founder of The First Persian Empire

I am Cyrus.
King of the world. When I entered Babylon... I did not allow anyone to terrorise the land... I kept in view the needs of Babylon and all its sanctuaries to promote their well-being... I put an end to their misfortune.
http://www.farsinet.com/cyrus/

Ghasem at July 27, 2006 06:37 AM [permalink]:

Ben: It seems you accuse any one who does not share your ideas.

¨...native europeans share the same desire for freedom ...¨
1- Classifying people based on their being native or not being native is in obvious contradiction with human rights. I disagree with this classification. However to be informative I should add that some of the people you classify as native disagree and oppose the attitude of Israel in the Occupying territories against the Palestineans. We share the values of human rights and we believe that the constant violation of the human rights by the state of Israel tend to accumulate such that, each day that they are not dealt with, their concequences increase in gravity and effect. I am not an expert in Human rights I looked at what experts have said. For example it has been argued constantly in various reports, at least, since 1998 that ¨the combined effect of closure, land confiscation, house demolition, systematic expansion of settlments and by-pass roads and discrimination against workers in the Occupied Palestinian Territories has caused apparently growing sense apparent anger that is being directed not only agianst to Israel as the Occupying Power but also their own Palestinian Authority [before the recent election]and specially agianst the international community in connection with its inability to offer effective protection.¨ Indeed, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms must be considered part and parcel of any viable peace process as they are a conditio sine qua non of any enduring peace.

¨you and your friends should attend your attention to what's going on in Iran rather than in Israel.¨
We are worried about the voilation of human rights in Iran, we are opposing. We are all human beings. Thus we should not close our eyes to the violations of the human rights by Israel in the Palestinan Occupied territories and Lebonan.

¨You and your european friends, have no moral authority to judge Israel actions against her enemies ¨
You are wronge. The experts in the field of human right have judged Israel action against what she refere to as her enemies. What I and my friends are doing is to study and to compare the arguments of the state of Isreal and the human right reports versus the international rules. Like any other human being we have the authority to express our just and independent thoughts and ideas on the subject which we study.

Ben at July 27, 2006 09:44 AM [permalink]:

Ghasem,

"Classifying people based on their being native or not being native is in obvious contradiction with human rights. I disagree with this classification"

I said that "native europeans share the same desire for freedom as the americans and israelis".
That is a very legitimate classification.
I am just showing you where the desire for freedom is inherent, at least in the past few centuries and thats in europe, and was constituted by native europeans.
Even to this day, you can see that many muslim countries still struggle inside themselves with these ideas and that just shows that they aren't ready for it, something the Americans didn't realize yet.
What did you want me to say, that freedom is in the minds of native middle eastern arabs/muslims?
It sure doesnt look like it with the institutionalized gouging of eyes and amputation of limbs, the imprisonment of people for things which aren't considered as crimes in the west on the one hand, and the religiously "legalized pedophilia" on the other.
No sir, these countries, and their people dont have the desire for freedom.
Native europeans which were born and educated in europe do.

The palestinian anger that you talk about is not the result of the israeli actions because these actions that you talk about only came as a response to terror that was before them.
The root cause of the anger that palestinians have is plain religious hate and to understand that it's enough to look at the Koran verses that preach against Jews, to see the religious anger Iranians and other muslims that have no contact with Israel have against her on a religious basis which is against jews.

Human Rights:
Your european friends never had to deal in a war with the enemies Israel fights, and when they will have to, and they will, they will be much less worried about human rights and make Israel look like a saint. Mark my words..
Your days of exploiting them and their ignorance are numbered and numbered by the behavior of your kind and no one else.

Ghasem at July 27, 2006 10:54 AM [permalink]:

Ben:
Human rights includes freedom exlusivley. Look at the universal declaration of Human Rights. You will realise freedom a pedibus usque ad caput in the universal declarition of human rights.

"The palestinian anger that you talk about is not the result of the israeli actions"
A mandate of the specail Rapporteur was stablished by Commission on Human Rights resultion 1993/2 of 19 Feburary 1993 to investigate the Israel's violation of the principles and bases of the international law, international humanitarian law and the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 Aufust 1949, in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967 and to report to the Commision until the end of the Israeli occupation of those territories. I went through many of the reports given by this mandate. All the special rapporteurs whom I read their reports never have said that "the anger that palestinians have is plain religious hate". On the other hand they clearly have stated, many times not once, that the anger is due to the unjust behaviour of Israel and the constant violation of Human rights of the Palestinian persons by the state of Israel.

Ben at July 27, 2006 02:15 PM [permalink]:

Ghasem,

I didn't check that human rights link you posted but if it's what I think it is, then you should send it to your friend Ahmadinejad.

Palestinian anger:
It's chronologically impossible that the palestinian anger began as a result of Israeli defensive actions because these actions only came after there was already anger that led to terror.
You can selectively read all rapporteurs that you want but that doesn't change what happens in reality.
Jews in Israel suffered from palestinian terrorism long before modern Israel was founded in 1948 and the roots of the Israeli defence force were created from small groups of defence guards that the Jews had to sustain in late 19th century and early 20th century Israel for self defence against raging armed muslim mobs that used to kill and destroy anything in their paths in waves of violence that were very similar to the recent muslim waves of violence in France.

The americans did nothing to make the 9/11 hijackers angry. They were made angry by their religious leaders. Those that suicided in 7/7/2005 in London didn't suffer any actions by the British army. Nor did the suicide bombers that killed hundreds of spanish people in the 3/11 madrid train bombings.
This was all done by religious hate, by following verses in Islam permitting to do this.
Your religion is an evil religion of hate, presented by exiles like you as 'religion of peace' to unsuspecting westerners.
But thats "ok", since the self proclaimed "prophet" permit lying to infidels.

It's enough to watch videotaped mosque friday sermons on the internet to see the hate being baldly preached to the muslim masses. It's also very easy to notice the inferiority complex that muslims and arabs suffer from. The Germans suffered from this same inferiority complex before the two world wars erupted. This psychological illness is most dominant in Iran and Saudi Arabia and will cause a world wide catastrophe if not dealt with by the world as a whole.

Palestinian anger is the direct result of education of hate and inferiority complex that sprung from Islam.
Russians used to totally flatten whole Chechen villages as a response for isolated acts of terror.
The Americans gave Al Qaeda camps in Afganistan and Insurgent camps in Iraq "leveling treatment".
Israel drops leaflets in Gaza and now also in Lebanon, saying which exact area is going to be bombed, asking people to leave beforehand.
Israel attacked in Gaza the buildings which are used as launching pads for Qasam rockets, and uses lazer guided missiles and expensive intelligence gathering to do her best at surgically killing only the terrorists and not civilians.
All of these actions by Israel are actions of self defance and not of provocation..
If palestinians develope anger against someone who is protecting himself from their violence then let it be.

The same type of hate that you can see in the eyes of palestinians, exists in the eyes of Iranians that volunteered to suicide in Israel although Israel has done them nothing wrong.
It's the same type of hate that was in the eyes of those that attacked European embessies all over the muslim world after the Muhammad caricatures were published.

This anger is the result of brainwash, of incitement, of collective psychological instability, of Islam.

Ghasem at July 27, 2006 04:03 PM [permalink]:

Ron:
"It's chronologically impossible"
The chronology you refer to is not right. The anger you are referring to had been in the Palestinian Territory and Israel when the first settlements arrived there. Those anger manifested themselves as groups which UK referred to as riots groups. Even at that time it had been special investigation by UK to identify the cause and roots for this riots groups. The report said that the concern was land and territory not the clash of the ideologies.
"You can selectively read all rapporteurs that you want but that doesn't change what happens in reality."
I tried to read every reports by that mandate. I am still reading the rest of the reports. If you know other reports by experts in the field let me know.

"The Americans did nothing to make the 9/11 hijackers angry... as a whole."
No one supports 9/11 or 7/7 acts. They are obvious terrorist acts which had been condomed globally.

"This anger is the result of brainwash, of incitement, of collective psychological instability, of Islam."
That is not about the anger in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The expert in field of Human right have said repeatly that that anger is the result of continuous and consecutive violation of Human rights by the Occupying Power in the Occupied Palestinian Teritories. For example look at article 76 in page 19 of this report . This article relates the growing anger toward the Occupying Power to sense of hopelessness and passive discouragement due to the violation of human rights by the Occupying Power. Article 39 of same reference states that the Palestinian juveniles are arrested on the charge of stone-throwing and are sentenced to periods usually from one to six months. Article 37 of the same reference states that Israelis mostly settlers who killed Palestinian are sentenced more often two between four and six months of imprisonment. Read article 39 and Article 37.

Ghasem at July 27, 2006 04:08 PM [permalink]:

The report that I was reffering to is this one

Ben at July 27, 2006 05:44 PM [permalink]:

Ghasem,

"The report said that the concern was land and territory not the clash of the ideologies."

Fear of growing numbers of new arrivals was more common than complaint over territory used by the Arab representatives against the jewish population in Israel in front of the British mandate.
But that doesn't counter my argument, in fact, you helped to make my point even more obvious because at that time, there were no F16 blowing up houses or targeted assassinations.
There were only Jews that settled in Israel out of ideology, religious motives and those that settled in Israel to flee the horrors of WWII.
Those that came from abroad the country either settled in land that they bought from local arabs for a very high price or settled in a land that already belonged to jews that lived there for hundreds and thousands of years.
Arabs began to worry about the coming numbers of Jews and were instructed by their mufti that dwelled in Jerusalem to go on the riots.
These riots were orginized and were motivated and directed by preachers of religion just as the recent riots in france were.
At that time there was no military occupation on the jewish behalf to give them any reason for the riots.
That is the correct chronology, the jewish community in Israel had no military capabilities at all until there was necessity to create them BECAUSE of riots that risked their lives, riots that came before there was IDF to occupy 'palestinian land' -- which by the way may I remind you, was occupied during wars the were imposed on Israel.
Sometimes losers can't make peace with their loses that were won by their victims fair and square and thats a shame.
That is also where the anger comes from, it relates to a proud and arrogant religion that can't afford being so humiliated, and then the inferiority complex kicks in.


"No one supports 9/11 or 7/7 acts. They are obvious terrorist acts which had been condomed globally"

Very nice.. I'd also like to remind you that the suicide bombers which palestinians send to explode in israeli busses and coffee shops are also acts of terror, and that the launching of Qassam missiles that palestinians use to bomb Israel every day with (even today) are also acts of terror.
And these acts of terror have no difference from what happened in New York, London or Madrid. They are also the same as the bombing in Bali and in India.
They were all done by religious people of Islam, because of Islam, by direct instructions of Islam.

Ron at July 27, 2006 06:12 PM [permalink]:

Mehrdad,

Please do explain how you know what I believe without me saying it. Are you psychic?

Deciding which side is right or wrong based on casualty numbers cannot even be called lazy thinking, because there is no thinking involved. It is a naive, black-and-white approach used by people who for some reason can't or don't want to contemplate the motives and intentions of each side.

Ghasem at July 28, 2006 05:54 AM [permalink]:

Ben : Point me to one report that states that the acts of Arabs -as a whole not individuals- within the boarders of Israel has violated the human rights of Israeli citizens!

Mehrdad H. at July 28, 2006 06:23 AM [permalink]:

Ron,

"Please do explain how you know what I believe without me saying it."

Well, I apologize if I have prejudged your belief.

"It is a naive, black-and-white approach used by people who for some reason can't or don't want to contemplate the motives and intentions of each side."

I do include the motives and intentions of each side in determining which side is right or wrong. However, the problem in many instances of such ethnic and religious wars is that the motives of both sides are nothing but stupid ideas of the leaders or other special interest groups. As for example, during eight years of Iran-Iraq War, both Iranians and Iraqis thought they were fighting for God. I never say Hezbollah is in the right just because it has inflicted fewer casualties in comparison to Israel. I say the country which has caused less casualties based on unjustifiable ideas throughout history should be considered in a better position. Take the invasion of Iraq by America, for example. Was that for finding WMD which were never found there? Or was that for hampering the terrorists who were behind 9/11 but were not Iraqis? Or was it all just for establishing a democracy while the closest friends of the US in the region, including Saudi Arabia and United Arabs of Emirates, are governed in an obviously non-democratic way? Although the United Arabs of Emirates was the only country which did officially support Taliban after 9/11, Bush administration insisted on granting this country the control of some of America's most important ports. So far over 34,000 Iraqis, as well as nearly 3000 Americans, have lost their lives in the so-called war on terror. Can you see any reasonable motive behind this?

Ghasem at July 28, 2006 08:33 AM [permalink]:

Ben: I also would like to draw your attention to Article 57 of the report submitted by John Dugard on 18 August 2005, Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, in accordance with Commission resolution 1993/2 A and 2005/7 which states that
"The Government of Israel is determined to defer final status negotiations for as long as possible to enable it to establish as many facts on the ground as possible before such negotiations begin. The international community should be aware of this obvious fact and do its best to ensure that such negotiations commence forthwith. Only a resolution to the conflict which ends Israeli occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the construction of the wall, the expansion of settlements and the de-Palestinization of Jerusalem will lead to an environment in which there is hope for respect for human rights."
This statement is clear as it is.

Ben at July 28, 2006 09:37 AM [permalink]:

Ghasem,

"Point me to one report that states that the acts of Arabs -as a whole not individuals- within the boarders of Israel has violated the human rights of Israeli citizens!"

What kind of nonsense question is that? Why do you use the phrase: "as a whole"? If thats so, I can switch the words Israelis and Arabs in your question and you wouldn't be able to answer it because you can't include all Israelies as a whole for what one of them does.
Suicide bombers in buses, coffee shops, gunners ambushes in civilian high ways, rockets that land in Israeli cities every day from south and north.
All these are violation of human rights of Isreali civilians. No need for report about this, just read the news.


"I also would like to draw your attention to Article 57 of the report submitted by John Dugard..."

The wall which you're referring too is there to decrease the ability of suicide bombers to cross the border into Israeli cities.
You don't like it? too bad, I like it, it lowered the suicide bombings to a 1/10 of what their numbers used to be.
Between the human rights violation the wall is causing to individual palestinian land owners and the significant gain of life in the Israeli side, I choose saving life.
It's funny seeing how you select reports of commissions that grasp nothing in reality and didn't earn their legitimacy to discuss the Israeli-Arab conflict in the first place.
You're manifesting an educated example to why muslims didn't advance in modern age at all.
Instead of taking these 'human rights' reports to try and better your own society, you cynically use them to harass countries that are fighting existential war with your fellow muslims that decided to practice their religion according to the book and have no considerations to human rights at all.
You guys seem to give much importance to creating more suffering in the world than first curing your own people, much the same way as you don't regard human rights violations that happens in Iran and other muslim countries, much the same as Saddam Hussain and Yaser Arafat both used all foreign aid they recived for terror financing and deadly weapons.
Instead of understanding what human rights are, you take the base assumtions to justify Palestinian terror and direct allegations against Israel.

Ghasem at July 28, 2006 10:34 AM [permalink]:

"The wall ... the border...."
The wall is not on the border of the state of Israel. Principle part of that it within the Occupied Palestinian Territories. In fact it is tearing apart the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The International Court held that "the United Nations and especially the General Assembly and Security Council should consider what further action is required to bring an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and the associated regime" (A/ES-10/273, advisory opinion, para. 160).It was confirmed by the General Assembly in resolution ES/10-15 of 20 July 2004 that the United Nation is under legal obligation to take action to bring an end to the construction of the wall.

"...individual palestinian land owners and the significant gain of life in the Israeli side..."
Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza are illegal. They violate article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention and their illegality has been confirmed by the International Court of Justic in its advisory opinion on the wall. There can therefore be no justification for the retention of settlements. A fortiori, the expansion of settlements must be completely unacceptable to the internation community (Article 21 of special reports A/60/271, 18 August 2005). There is a distinction between legitimate security measures and illegitimate security measures. The construction of the Wall, within the Occupied Palestinian Territories as opposed to along the Green line or within Israel is an illegitimate security measure and should be discontinued immediately and not relegated to the realm of permanent status talk. Failure to do so will provide FURTHER evedince of Israel's intention to annex Palestinian territory and jeopardise a fragile truce. (Report of special Rapporteur E/CB.4.2005/29/Add.1 3 March 2005)

Ghasem at July 28, 2006 11:15 AM [permalink]:

"It's funny seeing how you select reports of commissions that grasp nothing in reality and didn't earn their legitimacy to discuss the Israeli-Arab conflict in the first place."
The Quartet, comprising the United Nations, the European Union, the United States of America and the Russian Federation, appears to prefer to conduct its negotiations with Israel in terms of the so-called road map with no regard to the advisory opinion. The road map seems to contemplate the acceptance of certain sections of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the inclusion of major Jewish settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in Israeli territory. This process places the United Nations in an awkward situation as it clearly cannot be a party to negotiations that ignore the advisory opinion of its own judicial organ. (Last Pargraph in the summary report of Special Repporteur 05-4690 (E) 080905, A/60/150)
This suggests that the Quartet and the road map process to which it is committed are not premised on the rule of law or respect for human rights. If this is so, the road map runs the risk of repeating the failures of the Oslo process which likewise took no account of human rights considerations. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur is to report on violations of human rights law and international humanitarian law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. This mandate must surely extend to the attitude of States and international organizations to the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. This compels the Special Rapporteur to question the approach of the Quartet. (Article 55 of report of Special Repporteur 05-4690 (E) 080905, A/60/150)

Ben at July 28, 2006 12:07 PM [permalink]:

Ghasem,

Very nice and tidy, but you and the reports lose any legitimacy when not refering to the acts of terror that palestinians practice and the religious connection which is present in these attacks.
That wall prevents palestinian terror and saves lives of Israelis. You dont regard that, you only regard the fake suffering and fake victimizations of palestinians: People who elected a terror organization to be their government, people that have a dominant majority that supports terror acts against Israel and any other western country in the world, a nation of people where the mothers celebrate the deaths of their sons in 'shahada' acts of suicide bombings.
Palestinians send rockets and suicide bombers into israel. If Israel concerned herself with every human rights issue that is created by the wall and defensive measures that it uses, she would act as a suicidal democracy.
Ghasem, also have to ask yourself why the U.S and Russia and the governments of EU countries don't wave those reports that you do? You have to ask yourself why those reports have no influence on what happens in the field. Perhapes no one is willing to fight for them, that's because their legitimacy is disputed, very much in light of Palestinian terrorism and the growing phenomenon of world wide muslim terrorism.
Quoting hallucinogenic reports that have no ties to reality has become an art in your hands, congratulations.

Ghasem at July 28, 2006 12:37 PM [permalink]:

"...the reports lose any legitimacy ..."
The international rules to which Israel is a singnatory define the legitimacy. Thus the reports are legitimate. Note that the highest humanitarian councils in the field have reported them.
"Ghasem, also have to ask yourself why the U.S and Russia and the governments of EU countries don't wave those reports that you do? You have to ask yourself why those reports have no influence on what happens in the field."
That is the question we must ask and we must keep asking. As a free human being, I share the side with the Special Rapporteurs to question the approach of the Quartet.

A Reader at July 28, 2006 01:03 PM [permalink]:

"Terrorism is forbidden in Islam."

Do Muslims know that? Why are Mulims behind all the terrorism? Why do Muslim leaders say they want to convert the world via war to Islam? Which one is it? I would like to know...

Ben at July 28, 2006 02:26 PM [permalink]:

Ghasem,

Israel didn't sign anything which restraints her from fighting against terrorists.
My second question that you refer to was rhetorical, if you couldn't understand that, may god help you.

A Reader,
Terrorism is not forbidden in Islam, in fact, Islam inspires encourages terror.

H at July 28, 2006 05:12 PM [permalink]:

A number of facts question the premise of the current situation being the consequence of, rather simply put, a territorial dispute. For instance -
1. The PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organisation) was formed in 1964 to reclaim the lands occupied by Israel. This is three years BEFORE the 1967 war where the Arab armies lost 67000 sq kilometres of land to the Israelis, lands that everyone NOW refers to as the 'Occupied territories). What were they fighting for in 1964, when nothing was occupied, save the land granted to Israel by the 1947 Partition Plan by the United Nations? (This plan was rejected by the Arab League, which incidentally was not because they wanted more or less territory - the UN plan specified 55% of the area for jews, 45% for arabs, with Jerusalem being a neutral territory. The Arabs went to war to block the creation of a Jewish state - in their own words.)

H at July 28, 2006 05:26 PM [permalink]:

Before I go on to more points, I'd like to mention that I am an Indian. We've had just as much experience with terrorism, Islamic or otherwise, State sponsored or indigenous, as Israel or the United States. The current standing toll, officially, of Kasmiri terrorism is 35,000 civilians. Just Kashmir. Let's not even go into the multiple Bombay bombings, the Delhi bombings, the Attack on Parliament, the Coimbatore bombings...
A rather morbid fact is that the casualties due to terrorism are the least now since 1989 because of the current Indian doctrine of response, which is - First eliminate the terrorists, then the cause. Not spectacularly successful, even vague considering the intertwined response between the causes and the acts of terrorism, but somehow reducing the human cost, the cost of civilians who has nothing to do with any issue.
Do we feel happy that our soldiers are killing people with less discretion than they should exercise? No.
Do we feel safer? Yes.
A very VERY disturbing state of events.

Ghasem at July 30, 2006 12:52 PM [permalink]:

}{at: "... armies lost 67000 sq kilometres of land to the Israelis"
In 1967 the United Nation Security Counsil passed resulotion 242 calling Israel to withdraw from the Occupied Territories and Israel has yet to comply.
[Source Video]

H at July 30, 2006 02:05 PM [permalink]:

Yes, Ghasem. They have not complied. But most of the captured land belonged to other sovereign countries - Egypt, Jordan and Syria. And the national boundaries changed again after the 1973 Yom Kippur War. In fact, at the current time, a majority of the lands have been given back, including Gaza. But, unhappily, that did not change the level of terrorism an ounce.
But this is not the point I was trying to make. I wonder if any political solution that does not include the dissolution of Israel is acceptable to the Palestinians, who currently and ironically, do not recognise Israel. And the refusal of the Arabs, especially Jordan, to assimilate the Palestinians begs questioning. Never before has such a large displaced population been refused asylum by countries they themselves call supporters and allies, for such a long duration.

AIS at July 30, 2006 02:35 PM [permalink]:

H you said:
"at the current time, a majority of the lands have been given back, including Gaza. But, unhappily, that did not change the level of terrorism an ounce."

I disagree. It has quite evidently increased the level of terrorism manyfolds. For a simple reason. The aim of Arabs and mulsim lands is teh annihaltion of Israel, and ultimately the defeat f teh West. Its has always been an ideological-genocidal aim. All the nonsense talk about "palestinians" is just teh cover excuse to give it superficial justification and appeal. As Israel withdraws, they percieve it only as weakness and increase their assault.
We are talking of an ideolgy worse than Nazism here. The only reason it hasn't "achieved" as much yet is because it lacks order, discipline and technical knowledge, otherwise it is definitely worse.

A Reader at July 30, 2006 04:28 PM [permalink]:

AIS,
It is both funny and ironic to me that whether we approach the current situation as a territorial dispute OR a jihad, the ultimate and only acceptable solution to the Palestinians and the regional hegemonies seems to be the dissolution of Israel.
IF it be a Jihad, then the only lasting solution I see is to enlighten the public against indocrination, which would require publicly subjecting the texts of the Koran and the rationale of Islam to the same critical analysis and study that the other texts have enjoyed. But this cannot happen without the removal, forceful or otherwise, of the forces whose only claim to legitimacy and authority stem from Islam and the Koran. And THIS can only be done by external intervention, a forceful regional RESET, if you will.
If this be a territorial dispute, the solution is more straightforward, and requires little or no intervention. The waves of terrorism will keep breaking themselves on the rocks of an organised and successful nation until the costs become untenable for the terrorists. The lack of basic amenities, food and future will finally take precedence over idealism and fanaticism and the people will resign themselves, if nothing else, to the reality of Israel and then strive for their own betterment as the nation of Palestine.

H at July 30, 2006 04:57 PM [permalink]:

The last comment was mine.

AIS at July 30, 2006 09:47 PM [permalink]:

I'm sure it is not a territorial dispute. But territory comes in it firstly because of the same genocidal ideology that is islamism. It's aim is domination and subjugation and that means territorial hegemony as well. (again like teh Nazis and their Lebensraum). It is also useful for recruiting disposessed and deliberately unassimilated "refugees" and turning them into human missiles and of course as I said there is the amazing PR use they are making of it to sell it to teh idiots and the gullibles the world over for legitimacy...with great success unfortunately.

Ben at July 31, 2006 02:38 PM [permalink]:

Ghasem,

"In 1967 the United Nation Security Counsil passed resulotion 242 calling Israel to withdraw from the Occupied Territories and Israel has yet to comply"

You are ridiculous. Why should Israel return land which was gained in wars that were imposed on her?

Do you think you can intentionally cause a war, lose, and then ask for what you lost back?
No sir, this is not a childish game, so if they want land back, they must agree for permanent peace. Few understood this point already. some didn't and it's only their lose.

Ghasem at July 31, 2006 02:49 PM [permalink]:

Ben: Please do not practice selective morality! We all should respect the international rules.
"You are ridiculous."
Thanks ;)

Ben at July 31, 2006 05:03 PM [permalink]:

Ghasem,

International laws also prohibit the use and support of terrorism so stop your support of it and I'll stop calling you ridiculous.
Thanks ;)

saman a. at August 1, 2006 06:00 AM [permalink]:

whoever thinks god is on their side is responsible!

unfortunately hizbollah has made things worse throughout the recent decades.. israel, on the other hand, is "a country for jews!" the whole idea is racist!! think about it..

lets rethink everything.. forget what media tells you and use your brain!


http://www.voltairenet.org/article142429.html

---------------------------------------------

saman a. at August 1, 2006 06:15 AM [permalink]:

i need to correct myself:
whoever says god is on their side ...

thinking is believing! war is all about
+ power and pride

which are meaningless upon
+ believing in god or not being stupid!

Ben at August 1, 2006 04:13 PM [permalink]:

saman a,

You said:
"israel, on the other hand, is 'a country for jews!' the whole idea is racist!!"

Well, you've got a 'tiny' hole in your theory, you see, Jews have no race.
The only things that Jewish people have in common are their belief, tradition and the fact that they are being persecuted by people like you.

Israel consists of Jews from 104 countries (in the last count) and they were all fully assimilated and mixed with the people in the nations where they came from. Thats why Jewish people from Italy look like Italians, from Iraq look like Iraqis, from Ethiopia look like Ethiopians, from Poland look pretty much Polish and so on..and so on.....
Israelis are consisted of people from every single race on earth short of native american indians and native australian aborigines.
Your very assumption that Jewish people are a race, begs to analyze your world view. The understanding of it, is that you are racist yourself.


Before that you also said:
"whoever thinks god is on their side is responsible!"

I assume from your comment that you were saying that about Israel.
Let me remind you that Israel is a secular state and that Nasralla and his sponsers in Iran are the religious here.

aileen at August 3, 2006 01:55 PM [permalink]:

Craig!
Talking about noclear weapons; 1. which country ever have used nuclear weapons against other countries?
2. US blamed Iraq for owning nuclear weapons and raided the country, but when this blame proved to be incorrect, they started speaking democracy! and what a bloody democracy!
3. Iran is blamed for trying to develop nuclear weapons not owning them! and the best estimation of CIA is that Iran may develop nuclear weapons in at least 5 years and some times they talk about 15 years!

m at August 3, 2006 05:44 PM [permalink]:

Ben,
So Israel is multi-ethnic and not a racist state. According to you, it is jewish and the same time secular state?
Which is it, my pal? You cannot have both ways.

Ben at August 3, 2006 08:20 PM [permalink]:

m,

There are no both ways about it and the world isn't black and white.
Secular doesn't necessarily mean atheist and you dont have to be religious to belong to a given religion.
Don't shake your head too much, you might damage the single brain cell that you have. pal.

p.s
can't you use a normal name?

Ben at August 3, 2006 10:35 PM [permalink]:

aileen,

"1. which country ever have used nuclear weapons against other countries?"

The debate is not only about usage, its about trying to eliminate a neighboring state.
Whether the U.S nuclear attack on Japan was justified or not, it's very clear the U.S didn't try to eliminate Japan but to give it a knock out punch during a war.
On the other hand, your Iranian friend Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Intends on eliminating Israel and not even because he has a war with her (he doesnt have..yet) but just because his religion and ideology tell him to.
This friend of yours is stating his intentions in advance on various occasions including yesterday: Iranian president: Destroy Israel
Your hate for Israel and the west blinds you to the point that you can't see clearly. The path of the Iranian government and president is clear and if I were you I'd be very worried by now because the Iranian president truly intend on nuking Israel and if he will, whether this will make you happy or not, then you can be sure that Iran will also be 'wiped of the map' in a very short time after that.


"2. US blamed Iraq for owning nuclear weapons and raided the country, but when this blame proved to be incorrect, they started speaking democracy! and what a bloody democracy!"

It was never proven that Iraq didn't have WMDs, in fact, it was reported by U.N inspectors on the Eighteenth Quarterly Report form the 27th of August 2004 that the weapons and their vessels were smuggled out of Iraq.
I'd also like to mention that the U.S speak democracy for Iraq to immune Iraq from falling into a dictatorship again because dictatorship = danger to the rest of the world. (see definition for 'Iran').
On top of that, you have only your terrorist friends to thank for the bloody period Iraq experiences.


"3. Iran is blamed for trying to develop nuclear weapons not owning them! and the best estimation of CIA is that Iran may develop nuclear weapons in at least 5 years and some times they talk about 15 years!"

Where are the CIA reports which estimate 15 years? Can you supply with a link with some reference please?

Ghasem at August 7, 2006 11:16 AM [permalink]:

Ben:"I'd also like to mention that the U.S speak democracy for Iraq to immune Iraq from falling into a dictatorship again because dictatorship = danger to the rest of the world. (see definition for 'Iran')."
If this is really the case, why did the United States overthrow Iran's last democratic government, that of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh? If the United States really respects the rights of the Iranian people to choose their own future, why did successive U.S. administrations support the tyrannical regime of Shah Reza Pahlavi, installed by the United States following Mossadegh's ouster, whose dreaded CIA-trained SAVAK secret police tortured and murdered thousands of dissidents, thereby spawning the Islamist revolution that has since come to power?[+]

saman a. at August 8, 2006 01:36 PM [permalink]:

Ben:

the point is: the state of israel, unfortunately, does not claim judaism as only a religion;
zionists assume that being jew mean belonging to a race called “banee israel“, means the children of israel (god's chosen people). polish jews or persian jews, that I knew, didn’t call themselves polish or persian, but israeli (regardless of their birthplaces).


"whoever says god is on their side …":

islamic republic government in iran, government of israel, hizbollah and people like george Bush.

saman a. at August 8, 2006 02:07 PM [permalink]:

by the way, mr. 'tiny':

i don't really want to start this argument with somebody like you.

it's not only that your skull is stuffed with information that media wanted you to recieve about the world and you are not ready to open yourself to new thoughts, yet. it's your lack of judgment along with the fact that you think you are witty and sarcastic!

i just don't like rude people..

Ben at August 9, 2006 03:28 AM [permalink]:

Ghasem,

One sided wonder over those U.S actions and not fully justified imo, but in either case I already debated here with a few veteran commentators about the many mistakes I believe the U.S has done in the region. The most projecting was the support for democracy in the Palestinian Authority which gave rise to the Hamas government which is de facto a tyranical regime, same as the U.S arab allies in the middle east.
You could say the U.S does nothing in general and only work to democratizes them when they begin to produce too much terror. So what? Can you point to another country in the world that has tried to do better than the U.S?

Ben at August 9, 2006 03:42 AM [permalink]:

saman,

You said:
"the point is: the state of israel, unfortunately, does not claim judaism as only a religion; zionists assume that being jew mean belonging to a race called “banee israel“, means the children of israel (god's chosen people)."

Apparently you have no idea what you're talking about because Judaism is indeed only claimed as religion even by zionism. As proof: Gentiles can be proselytized if they wish to join Judaism, and unlike in Islam, in Judaism all Jews are equal.
In Islam non-Arab muslims are third class, the non-Arab-peninsula arabs are second class and only those from the peninsula are the "chosen" so you should actually watch where you step when you bring up the racial issue regarding religion.

"Bney Israel" in Hebrew means: "Sons of Israel". Israel is the Biblical Jacob which according to the Bible God changed his name to Israel. "Bney Israel" only refers to where the original Jewish people are descended from. It's legitimate to remember where you come from, what is your dynasty, family tree and there's nothing racial about it so please don't bring to this forum, the aspects of the dark brainwash that you've gone through by the media and books of your country.


You said:
"i don't really want to start this argument with somebody like you."
and also said:
"i just don't like rude people.."

(not so) Dear saman,
Please let me remind you that you first commented here for this article with this allegation:
"israel, on the other hand, is "a country for jews!" the whole idea is racist!! think about it"

When you comment here in this website you must take into account that people can answer your sayings.. It's the idea of freedom, something which may be new to you.. And I fully reserve myself the right to be rude when you accuse my nation of being racist when it's NOT. In fact, your charge was so unjustified and so offending that you were the rudest among the two of us. You should think about it.

Just as ending, I'd like to refer you to something that you said yourself which is pretty detached from reality when regards to me (short of the sarcastic part) but perfectly suits you:

"it's not only that your skull is stuffed with information that media wanted you to recieve about the world and you are not ready to open yourself to new thoughts, yet. it's your lack of judgment along with the fact that you think you are witty and sarcastic!"


ghasem at August 9, 2006 06:19 AM [permalink]:

Ben:"Can you point to another country in the world that has tried to do better than the U.S?"
There exist so many states which have not tried at all and all of which have done better than what U.S. has done.

Mehrdad H. at August 9, 2006 11:13 AM [permalink]:

What happens if an insect falls in a cup of coffee ?!
The British: will throw the cup into the street and
leave the coffee shop for good.
The American: will get the insect out and drink the
coffee.
The Chinese: will eat the insect and drink the coffee.
The Israeli will:
(1) Sell the coffee to the American and the insect to
the Chinese.
(2) Cry on all media channels that he feels insecure.
(3) Accuse the Palestinians,
Hizb Allah, Syria and
Iran of using germ-weapons.
(4) Keep on crying about anti-semitism and violations
of human rights.
(5) Ask the Palestinian President to stop planting
insects in the cups of coffee.
(6) Re-occupy the West Bank, Gaza Strip.
(7) Demolish houses, confiscate lands, cut water and
electrity from Palestinian houses and randomly shoot
Palestinians.
(8) Ask the United States for urgent military support
and a loan of one million dollars in order to buy a
new cup of coffee.
(9) Ask the United Nations to punish the coffee-shop
owner by making him offer free coffee to him till the
end of the century.
(10) Last but not least, accuse the whole world to be
standing still, not even sympathizing with the Israeli
Nation.

saman a. at August 9, 2006 05:22 PM [permalink]:

"tiny hole", the lovely:

1- freedom does not mean that you have the right to make fun of, instead of giving answers, to other ideas!

2- i did not say that your nation is racist, i said the idea of

* building a country in somebody else's land
* for the sons of israel (i believe its a race, you don't)
* with people from different countries (people, that already ARE polish or ethiopian)
* out of nowhere

is racist. if racist is the wrong word: its stupid!


arab muslims have ruled some parts of spain for some time fourteen centuries ago. don't you think it would be stupid if sixty years ago muslims around the world had moved there to built a country in the middle of spain?
that, your fathers did to palestine!

just let me know: what makes you think your fathers had the right to do that?

-------

by the way, i personaly say whatever they did is history.. why can't you just leave each other alone, now!?

-------

Ben at August 9, 2006 11:39 PM [permalink]:

saman,

Unlike what you understood, I didn't make fun of your ideas, I made fun of you because of the stupid accusations.
Zionism which is a bad English translation because in Hebrew it's written and pronounced as: Tzionut, is the idea of the modern state of Israel so when you accuse it as being racist you accuse the nation. It's the same thing.
You keep offending my nation with false well disproved accusations and I'll keep being rude to you, so it's a deal.
Israel wasn't built on sombody elses land. Some 4th generation and higher Israelis still saved the receipts of the land that their families bought with good money from Arabs that owned land or houses, receipts with British and Ottoman seals, visit Israeli museums.
You're also welcomed to study history how complete Arab villages were evacuated from unjustified fear of the Israeli army without even one Israeli soldier stepping a foot anywhere near them.
And you're also welcomed to study about the U.N partition plan that the Arabs did not accept.
Besides those facts, it's funny that you say who owned the land.. Funny that in 2000 years they were not smart enough to unite and create a sovereign country (the 'Palestinians' that is), something the Jews have done in less than 100 years.
Yes, maybe it's a symptom Arabs from this region have.. Just a couple of examples: Lebanon, which can't control an armed militia operating from the Lebanese sovereign land and serving the interests of countries which are hostile to Lebanon, the Palestinian government which can't control the chaos of warlords and more than 50% crime rate in their territories, or maybe it's the Palestinian people that choose terrorists to be their leaders.

You said:
"arab muslims have ruled some parts of spain for some time fourteen centuries ago. don't you think it would be stupid if sixty years ago muslims around the world had moved there to built a country in the middle of spain?"

Good thing that you bring this up because Muslims move there all the time as immigrants and in some places of Europe they already feel like it's their land..

saman a. at August 12, 2006 01:11 PM [permalink]:

lol!

saman a. at August 12, 2006 02:12 PM [permalink]:

ben,

freedom is about ideas. its not about personalities! i could've also made fun of your sexual orientation, for your interest in the use of 'tiny hole' which seems to be your thing.. but i didn’t! i don’t care if your people think you have the right to do anything in return, when something is not in your favor! we are not that untamed.

in fact, ben, we ignore people like you.. so i'm not wasting time to give answers to your combination of historical facts and lies, that have been answered before. things that, as i said, are history. but right now, you are more than welcomed to talk to lebanese children and adults that are being killed.

Mehrdad H. at August 12, 2006 05:40 PM [permalink]:

Ben,

Would you please keep on supporting Israel. I want to make of fun of it but don't have time.

Ben at August 12, 2006 06:49 PM [permalink]:
saman, May you please tell me, when did I say that freedom is about personalities and not ideas? Because you imply that I did and although I don't remember saying this, in any such case, I agree that freedom is also personality oriented, because it's through the personality that ideas are created. I really don't understand why you turned the 'tiny hole in your theory' phrase into a sexual ramming tool. I sure didn't bring any sexual suggestions into context so that responsibility only relays on you. Would you have notified me about your preferences for sexual discussions beforehand, I'd tell you about the fact that a great part of the reason young Muslims turn into martyrs is the wish to have 72 virgins supply them with fresh orgy forever, or maybe the sexual tensions the vagina of a goat can arouse among Muslims. How about the love Muha - mad had for little girls? Isn't that called pedophilia? Well the Mullahs in Iran have turned this into a sort of an art didn't they? Ho, but you've said that you ignore people like me and didn't want to argue, yet, you still keep producing nonsense that demands a response for the sake of those outsiders. And on top of that you talk about lies? OK, I'll show you lies, you don't care much about history thats ok, I actually feel more at home when dealing with current events because they're easier to validate and there's nothing like talking about things that you've witnessed yourself and are fresh in your memory, it's actually your side of advocates that lie: Reuters Doctoring Photos from Beirut? Another Fake Reuters Photo from Lebanon "It has been confirmed by the Lebanese Red Cross that at least 28 people were killed, 16 of which were children" - so why did the Pro-Arab news agencies initially blown up the number of dead to 58? I'm not suggesting it's ok because there were 28 killed but in any case they were not supposed to be there. BTW, the building was not under attack when it collapsed, according to the IDF and I know you might say they are lying but the IDF has an honest history of taking responsibility for the mistakes as well as successful actions, such mistake like in qana, even if it was the IDF, is similar to other occurances that happened in the past and the IDF has admitted to them. Before that there was the Jenin fake 'massacre' of 'hundreds': "The events were initially referred to as the "Jenin massacre", due to an allegation raised by Palestinians that the IDF killed hundreds of civilians in the camp. This allegation was later refuted, and the death toll was lowered to 23 Israeli soldiers and 52 Palestinians, 22 of whom were unarmed" Let's not forget the Al Durah media circus Do you watch CNN? I do. How about the Lebanese diplomats claiming that the Shaba farms belong to Lebanon while it was clearly taken from Syria in a war they waged. The only time Shaba farms were in lebanese jurisdiction was when French imperialism ruled there and as the term suggests, France ruled it, not Lebanon.. And even today when France doesn't rule Lebanon, this poor country still doesn't have the guts to stand for what it owns. Very important what you said: "you are more than welcomed to talk to lebanese children and adults that are being killed." I would really like to talk with them, and ask them, why they allow terrorists to use their houses to store explosives and the roofs of their homes to be used as launching pads for rockets that killed Israelis BEFORE the IDF has responded. I'd like to as ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
Ben at August 19, 2006 09:33 AM [permalink]:

I feel it's important to add this link:

IDF footage:
Hezbollah fires missiles from Qana and Zidkin

Was originally broadcasted by the Israeli news programs during the war, when the IDF held news conferences and briefings.

Ron at August 19, 2006 06:01 PM [permalink]:

This one too "Pallywood"...great short film shows Pals. literally making up news in front of our eyes.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=t_B1H-1opys

Ben at August 21, 2006 03:51 AM [permalink]:

And here are some of the Reuters lies neatly compiled inside a video:

Reuters Faked Photos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJ5Rj4yBGdU

Ben at August 21, 2006 04:08 AM [permalink]:

Eh.. Just one more (for now):

NYTimes & Hezbollah Raise the Dead!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gL0rEc2ZQu8&watch_response

Olalla at August 22, 2006 03:04 PM [permalink]:

The biggest mistake made by the U.S. was not going in and bombing Iran when they took their embassy personal hostages in the 70's. By not acting in that situation, the U.S. gave a false sence of power to Iran. One which they have held on to for all these years. The next time, Iran won't be so lucky.


The Iranian government is acting very childish when it comes to dealing with the U.S. and others. Their leaders mouths are going a mile a minute spewing out complete garbage. Most things that are being said shows the American people just how immature and stupid they are and if need be they will vote to go after Iran when the time comes. You don't go publically threatening and bashing people that are stronger then you, you might get a bomb up your ass!
I think that Iran should be giving the member nations of the U.N. an incentive package just to keep from not being blown up! The idea of giving a country like Iran goodies because they have a big mouth is Ridiculous.

If this gets serious, Iran doesn't stand a chance. I feel sorry for the people of Iran who really don't want such stupidity from their leaders. It's too bad they can't control them.
This is a very dangerous approach by the Iranian government.

Arash E. at August 22, 2006 07:29 PM [permalink]:

I just came across this site. I enjoy intelligent and civil arguments.

Anyhow, I am recently reading a book entitled "The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism" by Robert Pape at University of Chicago.

In this book, Dr. Pape suggests that the current wave of suicide terrorism is rooted in nationalism (reaction to occupation) not Islamic Fundamentalism.

Here is a quote from an interview:

"The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign—over 95 percent of all the incidents—has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw."

Any thoughts?

Ron at August 23, 2006 12:52 AM [permalink]:

Arash E.,

There are probably many different motivations that could drive a terrorist, be they nationalism, religion, or personal feelings such as revenge. What is clear is that whatever the different motivations, people who agree on the tactic itself tend to work together and re-inforce each other's reasons even if they hold different views.


Misneach at August 23, 2006 12:51 PM [permalink]:

Thank you for this well written article. The situation reminds me so much of the situation in Northern Ireland: the more the British used an Iron Fist to try to break the IRA, the bloodier and more vicious the IRA's attacks got, along with an increase in support for such visciousness. Israel, and America with their overt support, are creating a whole new generation of people who wish them harm, and in doing so are not living up to a government's obligation to look after the safety and well being of their population.

A Reader at August 28, 2006 06:29 PM [permalink]:

Answer to:

A Reader at July 28, 2006 01:03 PM [permalink]:
"Terrorism is forbidden in Islam."

Do Muslims know that? Why are Mulims behind all the terrorism? Why do Muslim leaders say they want to convert the world via war to Islam? Which one is it? I would like to know...


"Do Muslims know that?"
At least most of them, as far as I know then and can hear and guess what they think.


"Why are Mulims behind all the terrorism?"
Some powerful anti-muslim people want you to think this way and talk about it too much these days.


"Why do Muslim leaders say they want to convert the world via war to Islam?"
No sane leader knowing Islam says this.


"Which one is it? I would like to know..."
Muslims, in these days, are in some way like Jews in Holocaust. At first, Hitler started to make German people hate Jews, succeeded to a great extent and did what he did to the poor Jews abusing the media-fooled German people. At fist glance, it may look silly to some people, but I can't be sure that 9/11 or ... has done by muslims. Some hands may want people war-crazy.


Ben at August 29, 2006 12:13 PM [permalink]:
Some powerful anti-muslim people want you to think this way and talk about it too much these days. Well, if what you say is true, then the anti-muslim people that you talk about are Muslim terrorists themselves, since they do terrorize the world, they take pride of it and declare of 'more to come...'. And just a clarification: they are true muslims, after all, Islam specifically preaches for terrorism. "'Why do Muslim leaders say they want to convert the world via war to Islam?' No sane leader knowing Islam says this." 1) #1135 - Iraqi Ayatollah Ahmad Al-Baghdadi Talks about the Annihilation of America, Muslim Conquest of the World, and Declares His Support of Nuclear Bombs in the Hands of Muslim and Arab Countries Transcript: http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1135 Video: http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=1135wmv&ak=null 2) Hamas Leader Khaled Mash'al at a Damascus Mosque: The Nation of Islam Will Sit at the Throne of the World: Transcript: http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1024 Video: http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=1024wmv&ak=null 3) Iran leader: Islam to 'rule the world' Urges Muslims to get ready for coming of 'messiah': http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48268 4) #669 - Palestinian Friday Sermon by Sheik Ibrahim Mudeiris: Muslims Will Rule America and Britain, Jews Are a Virus Resembling AIDS: Transcript: http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=669 Video: http://memritv.org/View.asp?P1=669 5) #1121 - Libyan Leader Mu'ammar Al-Qadhafi: Europe and the U.S. Should Agree to Become Islamic or Declare War on the Muslims: Transcript: http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1121 Video: http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=1121wmv&ak=null 6) #957 - Al-Qaeda Leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri's Interview to Al-Sahab (Part IV): I Call Upon Americans to Join Islam. The Torah and the New Testament Are Distorted: Transcript: http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=957 Video: http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=957wmv&ak=null 7) Iranian President-Elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad- "Have no doubt... Allah willing, Islam will conquer what? It will conquer all the mountain tops of the world": Transcript: http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=782 Video: http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=782wmv&ak=null 8) Radical Islamic cleric Abu Bakar Bashir says he would like to come to Australia to convert the nation to Islam and Sharia law: http://www.2gb.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1502&Itemid=228 9) Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad “The world will be in the hands of Islam over the next few years.”: http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/2006/03/iranian-president-islam-to-rule-world.html 10) #1187 - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: When the Muslim Peoples' Rage Explodes, the Waves Will Reach the Corrupt Forces in the World: Transcript: http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1187 Video: http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=1187wmv&ak=null "Muslims, in these days, are in some way like Jews in Holocaust. At first, Hitler started to make German people hate Jews, succeeded to a great extent and did what he did to the poor Jews abusing the media-fooled German people. At fist glance, it may look silly to some peo ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
Arash E. at August 29, 2006 07:48 PM [permalink]:

I can't take any more of these stupid arguments here! It's Muslims...no it's Jews...terrorism, blah blah! Did you people graduate from highschool? Do you see a pattern in all these wars and terrorist acts?

This is all about a bunch of power hungry, money-worshippers, who don't give a damn about Islam or any other religion. They are not spending billions of dollars to bring democracy to Iraq nor are they killing themselves to free Palestinians. It's politics and it's ugly. It's about selling weapons, oil, and slavery. Bin Laden doesn't give a flying ----about Islam or Muslims. Bush doesn't give a ---- about democracy. They both want to control the world according to their own views, be it Bin Laden's dictatorial views or Bush' Imperialist mindset. Any person with a look at history will tell you that the reason we are in this mess is stupidity of the majority and greed of the minority in power. Stop the BS about religion!

Ben at August 30, 2006 12:53 PM [permalink]:

Arash E,
It is about religion . (period)

Expressing a fake sense of repulsiveness in order to change the subject and attention from the main problem is only jumping right into the argument and be no different from the others who take a clear stance.

If you honestly "couldn't take any of these stupid arguments any more" you wouldn't have read them. no one is forcing you. Your intervention implies that you just can't take my position in the argument.

When regarding the connection between Islam and terrorism, the reader from 28/8 said: "people want you to think this way and talk about it too much these days."

You pretty much said the same thing.

Arash E. at August 30, 2006 04:40 PM [permalink]:

Ben,

you and I seem to be the only people on this thread, so I guess I will have to address you.

First off, where do you get off saying "fake" sense of repulsiveness, as if it were impossible for you to imagine that all this back-and-forth ad nauseam religious bashing could possibly sicken some people. Obviously you enjoy it.

Secondly, why would you think that money and power are not the reasons behind many of the wars, past and present?

I am not speaking about the reasons why PUBLIC supports war. It could be poverty, religion, culture, old hositilites, nationalism, racism,...really anything.

I am speaking about why A FEW PEOPLE UP AT THE TOP decide to go to war.

You may think it is cliche but US government and the corporations that back it up, care about oil to a crazy degree. They need oil. They have been guarding their interests (aka OIL) in the middle-east for a very long time. Why did the Persian Gulf war take place? Because Americans love Arabs?? Because Kuwait agreed to become a Christian country? Or because of US interests in the region, namely oil. Why are thousands of American soldiers in the region? Why?

You may take all this nuclear BS (or Iraqi liberation...whatver) seriously, but US recently invaded Iraq mainly to protect its interest, oil.

People supported it because Americans are scared shitttttless of nuclear bombs. This is the century of fear. Everybody in the world is afraid of US, and ironically the US government scares its own people by constantly talking about nuclear developments in Iran...and prior to that, Iraq. That is the only way US government can issue itself a carte blanche for future atrocities in the Middle-East.

Similarly, Jews are not hated because they are Jewish (Islam respects people of the book). They are hated because of their wealth and power. There are about 14 million Jews. There are 1000 times more Muslims in the world. Yet, with the great concentration of Jews in New York and their extraordinary power in the world of politics, despite their small number, Muslims have become more and more hostile to them. If it were simply a matter of religion, Muslims should be at war with all the religions in the world.

Just because Bin Laden or whoever uses religious rhetoric to get naive religious people on his side, does not mean that he is risking his life to make G-D happy. He wants Jews in New York to share the power. It would not sound too good if he were to say "I want money and power so I attacked WTC". It is better to mention something to do with the Palestinian cause. It simply sounds less vain.

Arash E. at August 30, 2006 05:09 PM [permalink]:

Ben,

One more thing.

Actions speak louder than words. Think about it.

When Israel bombed many civilian buildings, hospitals, ambulances, etc in Lebanon it was because a few Hezbollah member could be possibly hiding in there or something like that. Or maybe they intended to kill civilians, who knows.

When Bin Laden's gang attacked WTC, he could have easily argued that CIA had offices there, and the civilian death was collateral. But he didn't.

When US bombed Japan, it wasn't to wipe Japan off the map. But what was the result? Would it make a difference to an orphaned child in Lebanon or Japan what the rhetoric was? Bombs don't understand language.

Some people claim that Ahmadinejad's comments about wiping Israel off the map should be taken seriously. Yet, even during Khomeini's time Iran did not engage in a war against Israel. Why?

But let's say that Iranian president said that he decided to bomb Israel to bring democracy to Israel, saying that Israelis deserve "true democracy". Would that sound better? What if it were called Operation Israeli Freedom?

What if Iranian government was saying that it was developing nuclear weapons, because like Israel "it has the right to defend itself", and that Ahmadinejad absolutely loves Jews! Would you prefer that rhetoric?

Israel and US hate Iran, and it simply does not matter what the Iranian rhetoric is. For US and Israel, both with nuclear weapons, it is generally not a good idea to have any more competition. Whatever the rhetoric, they will stand against Iran. I can not imagine they would ever okay Iran developing nuclear weapons, unless Iran sold all its oil to them for free. Then maybe.

Rasheed at August 30, 2006 07:39 PM [permalink]:

Arash: Stop bullshitting around the thing/

Israel and US are anti-Muslim and anti-Iranian. Type in anti-Iranian in wikipedia and you see.

Jews want to wipe Iran and Arab states off the map. Thats why US supported fucking fundamentalist asswipes to rape our Iranian culture. That way they could wage a war any day they jews got a hard-on. Iranians knew better as did Iraqis but fuking foreign intervention by US and Israel fucked us up. fucking Jews couldn't stand to see us in democracy so they fixed the elections. CIA has to shit with everything

Olalla at September 2, 2006 07:53 PM [permalink]:

Rasheed
...and what news organization do you subscribe too? The Iranian mouse club?
If the Jews wanted to "wipe Iran and Arab states off the map" they would have done it by now!! You honestly don't think they couldn't if they really wanted to?
Your elections were fixed, but not by Isreal or the U.S. Do you actually think they would have put that idiot up as Prime Minister? He's thought of as a loony tone!
News Flash! The U.S. is going be using a different fuel called ethanol, which will replace oil in the very near future. Then you won't have the excuse about oil any more. Do you actually think the U.S. took any oil from Iraq since they've been there? Their gas prices certainly don't reflect it!
and last but not least, since many Iranians would like to live in the U.S. and not Iran, then what exactly is their in Iran to "ass wipe"
Your wonderful culture? Your freedom? Your freedom of religion? Your happy and successful citizens? Your Freedom of speech?
I would bet you that their are many more Iranians that would want to move to the U.S. then Americans that would want to move to Iran. Why do you think that would be?

Rasheed at September 3, 2006 02:26 AM [permalink]:

"If the Jews wanted to "wipe Iran and Arab states off the map" they would have done it by now!! You honestly don't think they couldn't if they really wanted to?"

Your argument doesn't work. I have said the same shit about Iran wanting to wipe Israel off the map and asking why they haven't done it yet....

Oil prices are high because Arabs and Iranian govt are making record profits, as are US oil companies, from the instability. Dick ass-wipe Cheney, owns stocks in oil companies, and Bush, well, just look up his business interests.

I sure hope US develop some new fuel resource and leave us the fuk alone. Better yet, let Iran and Arab states put 100,000 thousand soldiers on US ground to protect their interests...see how Americans like it.

Ben at September 4, 2006 04:52 PM [permalink]:
Arash E, You have deviated a long distance from the main issue. The fact that the religion of Islam IS behind the Muslim terror attacks, is well known and agreed on by everyone. You claim it's all about money. Maybe you're naive, but I think you're a pathetic person who desperately tries to drive attention to other issues from the main reason, which is his beloved religion. Another reader here does it by claiming 9/11 was not done by Muslims, you try to turn attention to 'money issues', which is if I may point out, the most lousy excuses, at least he seemed to have read a few interesting spy/conspiracy books...(few too many tho) The reason behind these terror attacks is religion and no other, the religion of Islam. You said, in your comment, that it could be the motivation behind the public but you don't agree it's what behind those "few people up at the top". This comes right after my comment which gave you 10 very easy, top of the iceberg, extremely accessible, of the shelf examples. Only "up at the top" people are the subjects of these videos and articles. These people are leaders of Islam, prooving to all of us they want to take over the world, with Islam, because of Islam, in the name of Islam. It's a cliche that U.S government cares about oil, that's not a secret, hence the definition for a cliche: an obvious remark. But they're not the only ones. ALL other governments care about oil just the same if not more, it's one of the lifelines of civilization today. The French government for example, cares about oil much more than the U.S. The French government cares enough about oil, to sell their country, and foreign policy, to sell their principles and as a result sell their future, which is going to be alot darker than oil. Give it 20 years. At least the U.S cares about their own freedom and lives more than they care about oil. The Americans spotted a risk to their economic interests when Iraq invaded Kuwait, aiding an ally is legitimate and is nothing to be ashamed of whether the reason is economic or ideological and no matter which side you are on. When America was under attack on their soil they decided to eradicate terror camps and training bases of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and overthrow the Iraqi regime which was funding terror all over the world. This world storm of war on terror only casued Americans to pay more for their oil, you say they did it to get more oil or in aim for this, but reality is very different from what you say. You are a master at nonsense-talk. A funny think that you've said was: "Americans are scared shitttttless of nuclear bombs" You say that as if that fear is exclusive to Americans.. Can you point to a people which aren't afraid of nuclear bombs? After that, another pearl of wisdom from you was: "US government scares its own people by constantly talking about nuclear developments in Iran...and prior to that, Iraq" Well, you are wrong of course and I've already regarded this issue but here goes, it was never proven that Iraq didn't have WMDs, in fact, it was reported by U.N inspectors on the Eighteenth Quarterly Report form the 27th of August 2004 that the weapons and their vessels were smuggled out of Iraq perior to the war and during the war. And please be accurate, because (at least publicly), The U.S blamed Iraq for owning bio/chem WMDs and not nuclear. Arash E, you have gone from: "money being reason for war" to the U.S intervention in Middle-East affairs which was after it was terrorized, S ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
Ben at September 4, 2006 05:01 PM [permalink]:

Arash E,

I must regard this statement of yours:
"Jews are not hated because they are Jewish (Islam respects people of the book)"

Well, theres a little 3 year old girl from Egypt (a country which signed peace with Israel) whom represents best what Muslims are being taught from birth by their 'holy scriptures' about Jews:

#924 - 3˝-Year-old Egyptian Basmallah: Jews Are Apes and Pigs
Transcript: http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=924
Video: http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=924wmv&ak=null

And guess who is teaching this to whole generations of Muslims? YES, the leaders, those "few at the top" in your words.

#670 - Egyptian Imam Sings of Apes, Pigs and the Annihilation of Jews on Judgment Day
Transcript: http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=670
Video: http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=670wmv&ak=null

#1206 - Syrian Deputy Minister of Religious Endowment Muhammad 'Abd Al-Sattar Calls for Jihad and Says Jews Are the Descendants of Apes and Pigs
Transcript: http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1206
Video: http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=1206wmv&ak=null

And if there's still any doubt thats about religion, I'd refer to this webpage:
http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part6.html
And here are a few quotes from it:
"Muhammad Demands Muslims Kill Jews"
"Murder of Jews is Allah's Will"
"Islam is at War Against the Jews"
"Muhammad Warned of the Inherent Evil of Jews"
"Allah Cursed the Jews"
"end of the world won't arrive until Muslims kill Jews"

One last note: Bin Laden does not need "Jews from New York to share power with him" (like you say).
I have no idea how you came up with this, you obviously have a highly developed imagination.
That's also what probably makes you such a superb, self-delusional liar.

Ben at September 4, 2006 05:14 PM [permalink]:

Arash E,

You said:
"When Israel bombed many civilian buildings, hospitals, ambulances, etc in Lebanon it was because a few Hezbollah member could be possibly hiding in there or something like that. Or maybe they intended to kill civilians, who knows."

I don't remember, nor did I find any mentioning in news media archives and search engines of an Israeli bombardment on a Lebanese hospital, let alone hospitals. Whether you're a liar or not, the ones which I do know to have bombed a hospital, are your beloved Hizbollah:

"Health Minister visits Nahariya hospital struck by Hizbullah rocket": http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3283827,00.html

Regarding any Israeli strikes on other 'civilian' targets, I'm not sure what is the civilian status of a house which stores several tons of ammunition, of a house which roofs is being used as a launching pad for rockets which are aimed and have hit the Israeli hospital. I'm not sure of the civilian status of vehicles which supply more ammunition and supplies to Hizbollah, a terror organizations fighters in field.
The Hizbollah deliberately attacked Israeli civilians, before there was any Israeli response. That is a fact, you can't changed that.

You said:
"What if Iranian government was saying that it was developing nuclear weapons, because like Israel "it has the right to defend itself", and that Ahmadinejad absolutely loves Jews! Would you prefer that rhetoric?"

The only threat to Iran was Iraq, and thanks to the U.S, this threat was conveniently removed. Aside the nuclear issue, Iran truly have no country in the world which threatens at it. Ahmadinejad couldn't use this rhetoric even if he wanted to. So what 'right to defend iteself' are you talking about?
The countries surrounding Israel have tried to 'wipe it off the map' three times in history in a joint operation.
Any country in the world which had been under this threat three times in recent history from neighbours which still didn't restrain their hate and intentions, is worthy of nuclear defence.
Iran certainly does not fill in this criteria.

You said:
"Israel and US hate Iran, and it simply does not matter what the Iranian rhetoric is."
You are wrong of course..
Before the revolution Iran and Israel were very friendly, with academic personal exchanges between the two nations, Israeli designers are responsible for about 80% of the sewer network in Teheran. My father's cousin was importing Iranian fistuks to Israel.

The Iranian regime is religious and messianic. It dares the belief that for the end of the world to happen (apparently a good thing according to them), all Jews must be killed. The Iranian president has already said what he thinks should be done to Israel.
The U.S and Israel do not hate Iran, they fear the rulers of it, which are prone to do foolish things that can get a tremendous amount of people killed, for nothing.

Sara at September 8, 2006 11:50 AM [permalink]:

Here is a video you can watch that shows some of the criminals:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7828123714384920696

Ben at September 8, 2006 07:00 PM [permalink]:

Sara,
I posted videos in which you hear the problem-makers talk, you have untempered translation and can be the only judge.
You post evil propaganda, loaded with lies which are being spoonfed to the viewers, no legit sources included. Can you see the difference?

Shahab at November 8, 2006 08:19 PM [permalink]:

As an Iranian I am deeply sorry to see we are turning against the most educated, most intelligent and certainly most succesful nation in the middle east. We as persians have a long history of living with jews in our country. History shows that in middle east there are only two group of people that never fought against each other; Iranians and Jews.
I wish instead of supporting terrorisem we would come to the conclusion that may be being friends with the most intellectual people on the planet is not a bad idea.
There is a lot that we can learn from jews; Economy, Biology, Physics and Tolerance.

ken at December 20, 2006 05:21 AM [permalink]:

Didn't they murder and kidnap Israelis? Aren't they STILL holding them? Are they even alive?

And let me tell you, I am one American who thinks that Israel should have invaded Lebanon and kept killing people and destroying infrastructure until the kidnapped soldiers were returned, unharmed..

And when will Iranians understand that Americans view Hamas, and Hezbollah and Syria and Iran through the same prism. TERRORISTS.

Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorists, no different than Al Qaida. So, follow the logic...

Jesse at February 11, 2007 01:43 PM [permalink]:

nice article and truthful