Scott Horton Debates the War Party
Eric Garris,
September 12, 2008
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Well, at least one member of the War Party: terror analyst Harvey Kushner. Scott did a great job in their debate at Texas A&M University. It is hard to sit through Kushner’s crap, but I recommend that you check it out.
Note that Kushner refused to shake Scott’s hand after the debate.
Update: For those having trouble with the streaming video, MP3 here.
Update 2: YouTube version here.
Jason Ditz
September 12th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
This is quite a long video, its about the length of a feature film (about an hour and a half), but I’d advise anyone with the time and the patience to give it a watch. This Kushner fellow is nothing short of astonishing: no sooner did he dismiss the idea of trials for terrorists by saying “you kill ‘em,” than he estimated that 10% of the world’s Muslim population, some 150 million people, are “problematic” in this regard.
Scott does a tremendous job, though I wish he could’ve gotten a few more rebuttals at some more opportune moments.
Matt Fay
September 12th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Great job Scott! Eric, you were right it was hard to sit through that guy’s crap. Did they say he has a PhD? Well if that dumbass has a PhD then I’m not so nervous about pursuing mine. Keep looking at made-up reasons for why they attack and specious reasoning for why violence in Iraq is down, we’ll all be a lot safer for it. It is rare you hear someone that stupid speak at a debate whose last name isn’t Guiliani.
Chris Baker
September 12th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Scott,
Regarding democracy, the Franklin quote about two wolves and a sheep was good. However, you should have said: “It’s a republic.” I don’t think Kushner is a dumbass. He’s a polished liar.
Those of you outside Texas may not be aware of the dichotomy here. Scott lives in Austin, where Obama will get about 80% of the vote. He was in what may be the most neo-con place in the country. The rivalry between UT-Austin and TA&MU goes way beyond sports.
Louise
September 12th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Thanks for going out there Scott. You have a lot of courage and spoke it well.
Lawrence
September 12th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Scott, you did a terrific job. It’s tough to have to wade through so much bull***t. You kept your head and remembered the facts — one after another and in great quantity. I can’t think of many libertarian debaters that could’ve matched your performance in such a setting. Even better, unlike Ron Paul, you did not backpedal and take back half of your best statements when challenged. You came out swinging. Bravissimo!
Dan
September 12th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Mr. Horton, I am impressed. While you had the advantage of truth, rationality, and sanity over lies, arbitrary irrationality, and insanity (which taken together might also be said to constitute “Doctor” Kushner’s academic credentials), your defense of the truth was splendid and I hope inspiring to others.
An intelligent young man asked me recently where the leaders of his generation could be found. Next time I see him I will tell him about one. Your “cool” in the face of that toxic s**t storm of irrationality and lies was heroic.
swans
September 12th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Harvey Kushner is as frightening an enemy of the republic as any Israeli Firster I have ever heard.
Nate
September 12th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Great job Scott,
I didn’t want it to end. It was great to see you loose your train of thought and still take it all in stride. It shows you really know your stuff to be able to recover from a complete mind blank in front of an attentive audience without missing a beat. I hope you can continue the debating circuit to expose the rest of the war party as you exposed Kushner for the putz that he is. You are a valuable asset to the anti-war crowd. I wish we had even one like you in the main stream media as you made more sense in your brief comments than all the pundits combined that I’ve listened to in the msm since 9-11-2001.
Kyle
September 12th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
I would like to know some names of the fifth column that Herr Kushner mentions quite a bit. Ward Churchill might be an ass but I doubt he is an active member of Al Qaeda. Too bad you didn’t have enough time to take on the blatant racism of Kushner either, inferring that Obama is a terrorist due to his middle name, and that just about all Muslims are terrorists. If this were true then we would be mathematically fu**ked.
That said, good job Scott, bully to you. Also nice to put a face to the voice.
BadReligion
September 12th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
I noticed at the very beginning that the moderator was highly inarticulate, and sounded a little confused. It all made sense at the end, when he mentioned YCT. That stands for Young Conservatives of Texas, who are basically a gang of proto-Brownshirts. I called them “Young Cossacks/Commisars/Conquistadors of Texas” a few years ago during my nightmarish time at Southern Methodist University. I think Scott Horton gave them more than they bargained for.
Chris Baker
September 12th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Molly Ivins apparently said that one of her proudest achievements was getting banned from speaking at Texas A&M.
BadReligion
September 12th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Blast… “Commissars,” not “Commisars.”
Eugene Costa
September 12th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Harvey W. Kushner
Harvey W. Kushner (Ph.D., New York University) is Professor and Chair of the Department of Criminal Justice at Long Island University. An internationally recognized authority on terrorism, Kushner has shared his expertise with government agencies, including the FBI, Federal Aviation Administration, Immigration and Naturalization Service, and U.S. Customs. He also worked for the U.S. Probation Department as an analyst for criminal investigations, intelligence, and terrorism. He has advised and lectured on matters of international terrorism at the Naval War College, the FBI Academy, the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit, and the United Nations in Vienna, Austria, among others. Kushner has experience with a variety of high-profile court cases involving international terrorism, including those involving the World Trade Center attacks. After the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, Kushner was asked to testify on terrorism and safety in New York City’s public spaces before the Committee of Public Safety of the Council of the City of New York. He was invited by 9/11 Commission to participate in a VIP-briefing before the release of its final report, and he appeared as a terrorism expert before the DHS’s Homeland Security Advisory Council. A variety of publications, including the New York Times, have called Kushner the “go-to-expert†for plain talk about the subject of terrorism. He can be seen regularly on CNN, the Fox News Channel, and MSNBC and in articles in the Associated Press, the Washington Post, and the New York Times. A widely published and best-selling author, Kushner’s work includes Holy War on the Home Front: The Secret Islamic Terror Network in the United States and the Encyclopedia of Terrorism, considered the gold-standard of terrorism reference works. As a member of the working press, Kushner is an associate editor for the Airport Press and writes a column about aviation security. Dr. Kushner’s career as a college administrator and professor spans more than three decades.
[http://www.sagepub.com/authorDetails.nav?contribId=504379]
College adminstrator? Professor of what? This looks like the typical Neo-Con “academic resume”. Being an “expert on “Terrorism” has clearly become a cottage industry.
Chris Baker
September 12th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Scott,
When talking about Israel, you should always bring up the USS Liberty. It’s amazing how many people don’t even know that it happened.
andy
September 12th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
I have personally mentioned this subject to over 100 people and not one of them had ever even heard of it. A number insisted I was lying or must be mistaken.
andy
September 12th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Congratulations Scott. You did a great job.
Bob Bogus
September 12th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
And he has one hideous and menacing mug. See for yourself.
http://www.harveykushner.com/
Eugene Costa
September 13th, 2008 at 12:13 am
“I think we make a major mistake when we elevate Islam to a religion comparable to the Judaic-Christian heritage that this country was founded on.”
“I would have went[sic] in to Afghanistan way before we did and I would also have went[sic] in preemptively into other regions of that world as well.”
“If you have 1.5 billion Muslims in the world you are looking at 150 million people who are here to kill you.”
Dr. Harvey Kushner, Ph.D.
One looks forward to a lecture from the cultured and erudite Doctor Kushner on the militant Zionism and anti-Islamism of those raised in areas of New York in which the past participle of “to go” is “to have went”.
Eugene Costa
September 13th, 2008 at 12:18 am
Corr: “compound past infinitive”.
Eugene Costa
September 13th, 2008 at 12:40 am
It looks like his eyes have been retouched or he is a spice-eater from Frank Herbert’s Dune.
Albert Bakker
September 13th, 2008 at 12:43 am
I saw the debate last night and indeed it was tiring to hear that Kushner fellow yapping on and on in that boring monotonous voice about things that at times I suspect he had a hard time convincing himself. But in all honesty that feeling could also be effected by my disbelief at hearing someone with such credentials talk so much bullshit.
Kushner has polished his rethorical skills slightly over the years you can tell. I particularly liked how he grabbed the opportunity tying beginning to end of the enitre argument, thereby creating the illusion of coherence where there is none.
I now see why, taking into consideration the comment of Bad Religion about what type of audience was being addressed directly, Kushner, perhaps accostumed to that type of behavior tailored his argument to the audience by changing it half way into a McCain campaign talk and dutifully repeated all the campaign talking points including ridiculous smears. Perhaps he thought a pile of sugarcoated dogshit is easier swallowed than the pure stuff, perhaps the McCain campaign is really at the top of his priorities. It would seem so if you take his word for it, but that would ever so slightly completely undermine the worth of bringing the weight of his “expertise” to the discussion as he quite frequently tried to when his argument was getting really, really spurious.
Too bad for his rep though it was taped and other, knowledgeable people get to see it. Kushner lost more than the debate, he lost his standing as a professional. This debate is testimony to that.
Scott as always was inspiring to hear. He indeed had the advantage of having the truth on his side and he might lack the polished rethorical slickness of his opponent and I hope he forever continues to be so, because it guarantees you to either see a an honest and genuine person trying his best to share his ideas and for who they being true is absolutely crucial, or see a person lie.
And mastering rethorics does not always protect you from the latter as Kushner succeeded in demonstrating.
M. Junaid Levesque-Alam
September 13th, 2008 at 2:00 am
The irony is bitterly amusing from a Muslim standpoint. Prior to Zionism, it was Jewish scholars who looked sympathetically at Islam and mostly Christians in academia who fulminated against it. Once Israel was established, though, with all its well-documented massacring and ethnic cleansing of Muslims, most emerging Jewish scholars decided Islam was basically Nazism. How convenient.
I always have to chuckle when I hear this amusing phraseology “Judeo-Christian civilization.” I am no Phd, but I thought it was just two generations ago that a major Protestant Christian country incinerated six million Jews in the furnaces. Guess you can’t let little details about actual fascism get in the way of a good rant against Islamo-fascism.
Also, the links between Islamic civilization and the Western renaissance are undeniable. Whether it was translation, preservation, and enrichment of classic Greek works – which Christians came to study in Baghdad or Andalusia – or contributions in the maths and sciences like Algebra and the astrolabe, European learning from Islam was indispensable.
But no, Islam cannot be “elevated” or “comparable” to the other two monothiesms, says our good professor.
It’s a pretty pathetic state of affairs when you see a Jewish scholar advocating a genocide of 25 times as many people (“150 million people who are here to kill you”) as Hitler did.
M. Junaid Levesque-Alam
September 13th, 2008 at 2:00 am
x
M. Junaid Levesque-Alam
September 13th, 2008 at 2:06 am
From a Muslim standpoint, Kushner’s bigotry is most amusing to see on full display.
What is “Judeo-Christian civilization?” Not the same civilization in which 50 years ago Christian Protestants incinerated 6 million Jews, is it? Not the same civilization in which Europeans studied in Baghdad and Andalusia to learn Arabic contributions to algebra, the astrolabe, and additions to and translations and preservation of ancient Greek texts, is it? Not the same civilization in which Israel, according to its own historians, commits massacres and ethnic cleansing of Arabs, 15% of whom are Christians, is it?
No no, none of this happened. We have to invent a new Israel-centric narrative, one which demonizes Muslims, so as to drag the U.S. into a permanent war with Islam and thus assign Israel permanent special status as the central friendly front of this war.
M. Junaid Levesque-Alam
September 13th, 2008 at 2:07 am
From a Muslim standpoint, Kushner’s bigotry is most amusing to see on full display.
What is “Judeo-Christian civilization?” Not the same civilization in which 50 years ago Christian Protestants incinerated 6 million Jews, is it? Not the same civilization in which Europeans studied in Baghdad and Andalusia to learn Arabic contributions to algebra, the astrolabe, and additions to and translations and preservation of ancient Greek texts, is it? Not the same civilization in which Israel, according to its own historians, commits massacres and ethnic cleansing of Arabs, 15% of whom are Christians, is it?
M. Junaid Levesque-Alam
September 13th, 2008 at 2:08 am
What a transparent gambit. We have to invent a new Israel-centric narrative, one which demonizes Muslims, so as to drag the U.S. into a permanent war with Islam, and thus assign Israel permanent special status as the front line of a war of its own making.
Rowan Berkeley
September 13th, 2008 at 4:34 am
Hey, Scott, you really got that lizard on the back foot towards the end (notice how he kept shifting from foot to foot, like a metronome? that is a hypnotic technique, to force the audience to follow him with its eyes). Anyway, it’s great that he had to finish with the statement, basically, “at least Israel doesn’t fly aeroplanes into our tall buildings!”
Nike
September 13th, 2008 at 5:06 am
Horton is a person that I really respect. That dude has been ridiculed, trashed, vilified and slandered for YEARS by the war pigs – and still he stands up to the slime. Balls of steel.
God Bless America.
M. Junaid Levesque-Alam
September 13th, 2008 at 7:59 am
Oops, I thought there was an unmentioned word limit on here and assumed my first four posts never went through due to length, as they didn’t immediately load. Sorry about that.
Eugene Costa
September 13th, 2008 at 8:44 am
“I think we make a major mistake when we elevate Islam to a religion comparable to the Judaic-Christian heritage that this country was founded on.â€
As many above have seen the key element here is the creation of the supposed “Judaeo-Christian” religion–here synthesized as a “heritage” and made “American”–that both excludes Islam as a genuine “religion”, and, ever the victim, also turns the Islamic world into the aggressor and the terrorist as a matter of text and faith, against a “West” that is supposedly “democratic”.
This is pure Straussianism, reduced to bare bones, and though considerably less sophisticated even than the Naziesque political “philosophy” (read sophistry) of Leo Strauss himself.
What is ironic is that Kushner, clearly a Zionist, by his own language and the use of “Judaio-Christian”, actually identifies himself as a secular Jew, that is, like the Straussians in general, someone who believes neither in Judaism nor Christianity nor Islam (obviously) but who finds manipulating others into religious war a useful political tool.
Chris Baker
September 13th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Scott’s in Wikipedia!
Eugene Costa
September 13th, 2008 at 10:21 am
“It wasn’t easy going into Iraq. We knew of the difference between Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd”.
Dr. Harvey Kushner, Ph.D.
Er, ah, Kurds are an ethnic group, not a religion, and are overwhelmingly Sunnis.
One wonders too, if ten percent of all Muslims want to kill “you” (“Judaio-Christian Americans”), does that mean ten percent of the Turks, an erstwhile close U.S. and Israeli ally and also Muslim, want to kill “you” too?
Someone should really put the eminent Dr. Kushner’s performance here on youtube, where Turks, for example, can see it.
Another irony–were Dr. Kushner to express his incendiary hatred of Islam in Israel, he would very likely be prosecuted and silenced.
David Christie
September 13th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Yes.indeed.. The filthy no-good Zio-Nazi’s refusal to show good sportsmanship with a common hand-shake says it all. America, Behold: The Enemy A domestic Enemy Of The Constitution. Thanks for bringing this one to our attention.
Eugene Costa
September 13th, 2008 at 10:55 am
“anti-Semetic”, “one of the most poorest”
Dr. Harvey Kushner, Ph.D.
Chair of a Department at “Long Island University”? Is that an accredited university? What language do they happen to use in their instruction? Anyone know?
As a Ph.D, a professor, and a chair, is this Dr. Kushner, Ph.D., part of a graduate student program giving other people doctorates?
Perhaps one hadn’t oughta have went there.
hjmaiere
September 13th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Not to belittle Scott’s increasingly excellent command of the facts, but this is why they put so much effort into dictating the terms of mainstream political discourse. This wasn’t a debate. Dr. Kushner told us the institutionally-sanctioned fairy tale du jour and defended it with argument by authority. By contrast, Scott simply did some well-informed, well-referenced truth-telling and revealed Kushner for the fanatic nut job he is.
This made my day.
Andy
September 13th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Note how Kushner refuses to shake Scott’s hand! How utterly juvenile. How immature. How totally and completely immature. Somebody disagrees with me so I won’t shake their hand. This in the land of the free, with free speech considered a sacred right. Grow up buddy. Get some maturity.
Jason Ditz
September 13th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
I sort of got a kick out of the way Dr. Kushner seemed to look down on Scott for citing experts and journalists for his facts. How much easier would it be if we could get away with just claiming ourselves to be infallible sources and then manufacture out of wholecloth any fact we need to support our position?
I guess in Dr. Kushner’s case its more a matter of necessity than convenience, however, because the facts simply to do not lend themselves to his position.
Lionel Osbourne
September 13th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Scoring this debate from a logical standpoint, since Kushner never made an argument that wasn’t a fallacy, therefor never posited a single valid argument, you can’t actually give him a single point. This debate wasn’t even as close as most people seem to think. Scott basically destroyed him.
Keith Brumley
September 13th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Scott – excellent job! Keep up the great work for liberty!
Glendon Wayne
September 13th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Name Your Game
‘Operation evening light’
for a ‘bold mariner’ without the ‘beacon torch’
all names that sound benign
like eleven past nine
but the ‘beacon star and ‘beacon torch’
don’t do benign
The ‘anvil’ and the ‘eagle claw’
are not for a bird of prey or for a blacksmith
The ‘prime chance’ of the ‘prayerful mantis’
the ‘grand slam’ of the ‘nimble archer’
name the names of operations
the life lifting ones
from the ‘tomahawk’ to the ‘arc light’
to the ‘steel tiger’ and ‘barrel roll’
the naming game, the mating game
not to mention…. the coveted warrior
go on the same.
Name your game
What is the toll in life and love
of all these operations?
Were they for revenge plunder or power?
Did they favor the will of a higher power?
for ‘infinite justice’ ain’t just for the chosen
just as operation ‘Just Cause’ named
the cause of the powered few
who clip coupons cause they can
and cause
they think they own the world
Here’s hoping for a new ‘Frequent Wind’
the welcome sound of evacuating choppers
in the new Babylon Bagdad green zone
so that the tangled web of the elite
will have new coupons to clip
the gated who of who’s
who finally realize that
war really is a bust.
Jonathan
September 13th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Scott make a lot of factual errors.
Everyone can have their own opinon but no one has a right to their own “facts”
Al Qaeda fights for the Caliphate.
The US can’t afford 3 billion to Israel but does anyone really think that if the US didn’t give 3B to Israel that all of a sudden , the enemies of the US would make nice?
And anyway why ought the the US do something just cause Bathists, Khomeni followers or Al Qaedists threaten to blow stuff up if the US doesn’t give in to them?
Saddam was a threat to the US. One of the reasons he wanted Kuwaiti oil was he wanted to control gulf oil supplies to blackmail the US into foreign policy changes. It is not like Saddam had a right to Kuwaiti oil.
Why did the US have to allow Saddam’s Iraq to become much more powerful at the expense of the US by its invasion of Kuwait? Saddam didn’t have a right to Kuwait and the US didn’t have to let him have it.
Rodrigo
September 13th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Kushner: “Israel is a mirror image of the United States”
If a racist militarist state like Israel is only an image of the United States, we must be pretty bad.
Jonathan
September 13th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Zionism = Nazim
There is one Nazi here you.
David Christe is a bigot.
Jonathan
September 13th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Hey are Israel’s enemies racist?
Since they are trying to destroy Israel I guess they are also militarist states and groups.
Ah selective criticism.
Jonathan
September 13th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
By the way Scott is right none of the 9-11 hijackers were from Iraq but NONE of them were from Afghanistan either.
The war on terror is more than just Afghanistan.
Andy
September 13th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Israel couldn’t care less about America. They just want a “big brother” to protect them from the wrath of those they bully. Oh yeah, getting 3 billion dollars a year too doesn’t hurt either. The USA would be better off in every possible way if it didn’t have this millstone around its neck.
Orville H. Larson
September 13th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
No, Israel doesn’t fly planes into our buildings. Instead, they’re happy to let Americans fight and die for ‘em in the Middle East; they tried to provoke war between the U.S. and Egypt in 1954 (“Lavon Affair”); they shot the hell out of U.S.S. LIBERTY; and they let the U.S. cover for ‘em in the United Nations.
Wonderful “allies,” the boys back in Tel Aviv!
Orville H. Larson
September 13th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Personally, I think Kushner’s a polished liar AND a dumbass! He’s a rabid Zionofascist, an everything-for- Israel bastard.
Best regards to Scott Horton.
ConcernedHuman
September 13th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Islam (the belief and living accordingly inline with THE One and Only Creator, “muslim†literally means “someone who tries to do Islamâ€) has already messaged many historical and scientific facts, including the big bang, the expanding universe, the atomic structure, creation and evolution of both the universe and human kind and the creation of other creatures besides humans and animals.
Try to overcome your misconceptions due to misinformation based on international politics and the wrong doings of some muslims and open up your mind and heart to Islam, learn Islam from Islam, not from biased mass media or luciferians pretending to be muslims or misguided muslims (ps: there is no proper Islamic state, Islam is perfect but muslims are not).
Learn that Jesus (peace be upon him) was practicing Islam and he foretold the coming of Mohammed (peace be upon him), learn that in Islam Mary (peace be upon her) the mother of Jesus (pbuh) is the most revered woman in all human history, and Jesus (pbuh) is awaited by muslims to return as the Messiah to fight the anti-christ/dajjal, and all sincere muslims will be joining Jesus (pbuh) in his kingdom on earth.
Learn what you have been lied to about and were made to ignore for so long, learn the truth.
AllahsQuran(.)com
QuranMiracles(.)com
BibleIslam(.)com
IslamCode(.)com
WhatsIslam(.)com
ShareIslam(.)com
TurnToIslam(.)com
Peace to all.
ConcernedHuman
September 13th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Hes “never heard of an english dream, a french dream and certainly never heard an iraqi dream”?!
The arrogance of this man!
The only people that wants and deserves peace and prosperity are not only the americans.
Americans only find themselves in trouble when they try to IMPOSE their interests upon others without considering that those “other” people might have a peace and prosperity dreams too.
Zionist Israelis (not all Jews/Israelis are Zionist) uses America, and America hurts the world people.
Wake up American, return to your Constitution, the original American Dream, the way you are you have become a world tyrant manipulated by the Zionists.
Jonathan
September 13th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
How come it is Israel who is the bully and not its enemies.
Why ought the US give in to Bathists, Khomeni followers and Al Qaedists? Why should they be able to tell the US what to do?
Jonathan
September 13th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Were is your proof about the USS liberty.
I would say the US is just voting the way its sees the facts at the UN.
Why ought the US not vote the way it sees the facts at the UN?
Cause Bathists, Khomeni followers and Al Qaedists threaten to blow stuff up if the US doesn’t do what they say.
Entangling alliances is not the American way but giving into fascist bigots isn’t the American way either.
Ryan
September 13th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Scott could have debated Sean Hannity and it would have sounded the same. By this I mean all of these clowns, no matter what their background, speak the same language built around talking points and focus group tested expressions. There must be a hospital where their brains are worked on to remove what little critical thinking skills they have removed and replace with the robotic sounding garbage that Kushner spoke in.
Still, taking down this obnoxious prick of a *PHD* is quite an achievement, as unlike Hannity he does have on paper what appears to be an academic background on paper. I’d hate to have him as a professor.
Scott, when he refused to shake your hand that told the tale.
Well done!
Rowan Berkeley
September 13th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
I think it’s sad that “Concerned Human” feels he needs Spielberg-style gimmicks to “sell” Islam, like a “Qur’an Code” to go with the “Bible Code,” and supposed accounts of “the big bang and atomic structure.” This is a childish effort to attract the materialistic Westerners with shiny objects. Rashad Khalifa, the “discoverer” (or rather, inventor) of the “Qur’an Code”, came to a sticky end, by the way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashad_Khalifa
Jonathan
September 13th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Yes Bathists , Khomenii followers and Al Qaedists are such nice a peaceful people.
They ought to give up their war.
Jonathan
September 13th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
All Khomeni followers , Al Qaedists, and Bathists are fascist bigots.
I tell you what let them give up their war and the US won’t bother them.
Jonathan
September 13th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
what happened?
Eugene Costa
September 13th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
The poster is not worth responding to, but note quite carefully the appearance of yet a new terminology above, “Al Qaedists”.
Eugene Costa
September 13th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
On the same topic, as early as 2006 Daniel Levy has the hilarious double-barrelism: “Sunni al-Qaedists and Shiite Ahmedinajists”.
I am not sure why the latter is not “Ahmadinejadist”, but no doubt both the Iranian religious leadership and Ahmadinejad will be surprised to find out that Ahmadinejad has his own sect of Shi’ite Islam.
Jonathan
September 14th, 2008 at 1:16 am
Well those who follow the ways of Osama Bin Laden. They fight for a fascist Caliphate where those of other religions are either killed , enslaved or killed.
Eugene Costa just cause you deny what is going on doesn’t make it so.
And Aytollah Khomeni and his followers are bigots.
Say it is not so>
Persecution of members of the Mandaean Religion in Iran
The Mandaeans in Iran primarily occupy an area of the city of Ahwaz called Khuzistan. Ahwaz lies close to the border with Iraq, and its population is overwhelmingly Shi’ite Moslem.
The Mandaean religion is not recognised as a legal religion under Article 13 of the Iranian Constitution. Consequently they are discriminated against in all policy decisions:
In Iran, particularly severe persecution of minority religions, including executions of Mandaeans and of Baha’is, continues.
All religious minorities suffer varying degrees of officially sanctioned discrimination, particularly in the areas of employment, education and housing.
Recognised religious minorities are second class citizens. Non-believers and non recognised religions are deprived of any rights.
The following are examples of incidents which characterise everyday life for Mandaeans in Iran. The intensity of these acts varies and the consequences can be very severe.
“Uncleanlinessâ€
The Mandaeans are considered unclean by Moslems, and encounter difficulties when shopping. They are not allowed to touch a Moslem or work in the food industry as they are perceived to render unclean everything they touch. A Mandaean who accidentally touches an item may be confronted with the demand to buy the entire stock as it has been rendered ‘unclean’.
Disruption of Mandaean family life: forced marriage and sexual assault
In her most recent report to Amnesty International, Professor J.J. Buckley — an internationally recognised specialist on the Mandaean religion — has stressed that “the attempt to destroy Mandaean families is increasing, but with a particular focus on women and young girls.†The Mandaean Human Rights Committee has also documented that the Iranian authorities attempt to break up Mandaean families with a particular focus on women and children, pressuring them to convert to Islam and pressuring women to marry Moslem men. Further reports, including those produced by ASUTA (the Journal for the Study and Research into the Mandaean Culture, Religion and Language) indicate that Mandaean parents fear that their children will be kidnapped, and forcibly circumcised, converted to Islam, raped or forcibly married. Regarding the rape of Mandaean girls and women, several reports suggest that Islamic judges would hold that a Moslem male who raped a Mandaean female would be understood to have “purified†her. Accordingly, the Sabian Mandaean Association reports that Mandaean girls have been raped with impunity by Moslem men.
Friends of your Eugene?
Jonathan
September 14th, 2008 at 1:21 am
Al Qaeda is a fascist hate group
Khomeni was a fascist bigot and so are his followers
Eugene Costa Without a doubt those who follow Khomeni and those who follow Osama Bin Laden are fascist bigots.
“:Persecution of members of the Mandaean Religion in Iran
The Mandaeans in Iran primarily occupy an area of the city of Ahwaz called Khuzistan. Ahwaz lies close to the border with Iraq, and its population is overwhelmingly Shi’ite Moslem.
The Mandaean religion is not recognised as a legal religion under Article 13 of the Iranian Constitution. Consequently they are discriminated against in all policy decisions:
In Iran, particularly severe persecution of minority religions, including executions of Mandaeans and of Baha’is, continues.
All religious minorities suffer varying degrees of officially sanctioned discrimination, particularly in the areas of employment, education and housing.
Recognised religious minorities are second class citizens. Non-believers and non recognised religions are deprived of any rights.
The following are examples of incidents which characterise everyday life for Mandaeans in Iran. The intensity of these acts varies and the consequences can be very severe.
“Uncleanlinessâ€
The Mandaeans are considered unclean by Moslems, and encounter difficulties when shopping. They are not allowed to touch a Moslem or work in the food industry as they are perceived to render unclean everything they touch. A Mandaean who accidentally touches an item may be confronted with the demand to buy the entire stock as it has been rendered ‘unclean’.
Disruption of Mandaean family life: forced marriage and sexual assault
In her most recent report to Amnesty International, Professor J.J. Buckley — an internationally recognised specialist on the Mandaean religion — has stressed that “the attempt to destroy Mandaean families is increasing, but with a particular focus on women and young girls.†The Mandaean Human Rights Committee has also documented that the Iranian authorities attempt to break up Mandaean families with a particular focus on women and children, pressuring them to convert to Islam and pressuring women to marry Moslem men. Further reports, including those produced by ASUTA (the Journal for the Study and Research into the Mandaean Culture, Religion and Language) indicate that Mandaean parents fear that their children will be kidnapped, and forcibly circumcised, converted to Islam, raped or forcibly married. Regarding the rape of Mandaean girls and women, several reports suggest that Islamic judges would hold that a Moslem male who raped a Mandaean female would be understood to have “purified†her. Accordingly, the Sabian Mandaean Association reports that Mandaean girls have been raped with impunity by Moslem men.”
http://www.iranian.com/BTW/2005/July/Mandaean/index.html
Say it is not so.
Eugene Costa apologist for the Iranian regime and apologist for Al Qaeda.
Jonathan
September 14th, 2008 at 1:23 am
Eugene Costa
those who follow Khomeni and Osama Bin Laden are all fascist bigots.
http://www.iranian.com/BTW/2005/July/Mandaean/index.html
and Eugene Costa is an apologist for them
Rowan Berkeley
September 14th, 2008 at 1:36 am
goodness – a troll.
Eugene Costa
September 14th, 2008 at 1:52 am
Drivel isn’t worth a response.
I note in another context that no one has seriously examined Saakasvili’s trope of Georgia as the “Israel” of the Caucacus.
Most seem to be taking it literally, and emphasizing the Israeli presence in Georgia, including former Israelis as Georgian officials.
This is not wrong.
But what might he mean figuratively as well–a US and NATO supported post-colonial “Anglo-American” outpost on the Black Sea, to accomplish against the Russians and their neighbors what Israel is supposed to have accomplished in the Middle East, that is, to rule the nations in the region as client states and in dependency and chaos while all the oil rides off into the sunset under the tutelage of British and American and Dutch and other multinational oil interests?
Jonathan
September 14th, 2008 at 1:52 am
Rowan Berkeley your mother was a troll.
Jonathan
September 14th, 2008 at 1:56 am
Well what you say is nothing but propaganda and it needs to be answered at least sometimes
At any rate except for one case two countires with McDonalds never had a war with each other.
Of course the US needs to think about what it gets itself into but the US is better off with more Georgias and less Irans in the world.
Eugene Costa
September 14th, 2008 at 2:07 am
“Five American religious organizations have announced plans to host a dinner to break the Ramadan fast with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during his upcoming visit to the United States.
The Mennonite Central Committee, the Quakers, the World Council of Churches, Religions for Peace and the American Friends Service Committee are sponsoring the meeting with President Ahmadinejad on September 25 in New York City….
National Director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), Abraham H. Foxman, issued a response to the announcement, calling the planned event “a perversion of the search for peace and an appalling betrayal of religious values.”
“It simply defies belief that five organizations with a mission of promoting peace through dialogue would choose President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from among the hundreds of world leaders and ambassadors who will be in New York this month, as an appropriate and legitimate interlocutor on world peace,” Foxman said.
Foxman continued, “In extending an invitation to Ahmadinejad, the religious organizations sponsoring this dinner have tarnished their reputations as peace seekers and bridge builders. Their breaking bread with President Ahmadinejad is a perversion of the search for peace and an appalling betrayal of religious values.”
[Haaretz September 13, 2008]
Apalling! Defies belief! A perversion! Betrayal! Don’t these people know Ahmadinejad is leader of his own Iranian Terrorist Sect–”the Ahmadinejadists!”
This post-modern Islamo-Fascist sect wants to kill one out of every ten Americans because it resents their freedom!
What is the Judaeo-Christian religion coming to! Don’t they understand an existential threat?
swans
September 14th, 2008 at 2:09 am
There are hateful sects against women in all religions, not just Muslims, and these are found in Israel and in the USA.
swans
September 14th, 2008 at 2:20 am
Thank you for the poetry, Glendon. How recently did you compose, “Name Your Game”?
Eugene Costa
September 14th, 2008 at 2:29 am
Yes, but where in the US or Israel can you find the equivalent of the Iranian Islamohamburglars, for instance–a small but vicious Muslim Terrorist Brotherwood sworn to destroy one out of ten McDonald’s Restaurants the world over!
There may well be sectarians in the US or Israel opposed to McDonalds,but their religious texts do not encourage them to violence or acts of terrorism.
swans
September 14th, 2008 at 3:12 am
Huh, Eugene? Whaaaat?
richard vajs
September 14th, 2008 at 4:59 am
Jonathan,
You ask “How come it is Israel who is the bully and not its enemies. (sic ?)”
Well it comes from Israel being a racist, land-stealing, criminal state. It comes from Israel dropping cluster bombs over half of Lebanon out of spite; a nation that Israel destroyed 20 years earlier out of its hatred of all things Arab. It comes from Israel defying U N resolutions of 40 years standing. It comes from abuse of American trust, resulting in hundreds of billions of American taxpayers’ funds being sent to this “little turd of a country” by bribery and threats and corruption of our U S Congress. It comes from a stream of lies and treachery directed at American intelligence organizations, designed to involve America in Israel’s filthy genocidal wars. It comes from fifth column activities by Zionist Americans willing to divert America from being a fair leader of the World into a rabid defender of Zionism.
Jonathan
September 14th, 2008 at 6:02 am
No comparison you disassembler ( look it up)
->
Behind Algeria, on a score of 110.55, come North Korea, Burma, Indonesia, Libya, Colombia, Syria, Iraq, Yugoslavia and China. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan and Nigeria follow closely. The United Kingdom comes 141st; a good score on a global basis but not so admirable when compared with other rich, industrialised countries – we are seventh out of 23.
->
It scores 10 out of 10 on denial of majority rights because of gassing the Kurds.
A country with a wretched record of human rights abuse could score a maximum total of 190. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq proves the winner of the unmodified list – which measures human rights abuses outside of their economic context – with an unadjusted score of 155.
http://www.algeria-watch.de/mrv/mrvrap/observe4.htm
The US has all the right enemies.
Rowan Berkeley
September 14th, 2008 at 6:07 am
aha, a human rights imperialist. how passé.
Eugene Costa
September 14th, 2008 at 8:51 am
The “Mandeans”, so-called, had freedom of religion under the Baathists and Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and what is available on the internet suggests that some are none too happy with the American Invasion and Occupation.
“Mandeans” as a cause celebre in a synagogue in Arkansas:
http://www.andybachman.com/?p=608
One might have some fun analysing the various layers, but one does not have time.
Perhaps the learned Herr Professor Doktor Kushner can help the poster out, and also enlighten him on the Israelis and the Druze.
xearther
September 14th, 2008 at 8:57 am
the US is better off with more Georgias and less Irans in the world
The dead in the de facto independent republic of South Ossetia would disagree with you.
The US (and the world) is better off with more Switzerlands.
Jonathan, it is apparent from your posts your world view is based on (like most other humans on the planet) the “Us vs Them” paradigm. As long as you and others maintain this rabidity, no matter what State/God is idolized and prayed to for protection, confirmation and absolution, we are all in danger of loosing what’s left of any hope we may still cling to for a better future, let alone any future.
I still maintain hope for myself and my family. And I maintain a hope for all those who seek peace. But I do not have any hope for you, Jonathan, as long as you and others keep seeing monsters “over there”.
They are not “over there”, Jonathan. They are in the mirror.
tom
September 14th, 2008 at 10:48 am
look at kushner carefully…listen to his words…that is the face and voice of evil…of world domination….of neocon arrogance….the pity is that he was not booed out of the auditorium, out of the city, out of the state, out of the country….that any crowd could sit patiently and listen to such vile words advocating invasion, murder, and torture is a stark statement about how far this once-great nation has fallen morally….scott did a great job…
Eugene Costa
September 14th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Speaking of persecuted minorities, one might mention the Samaritan Jews, who have the best claim to being direct, lineal descendents of the ancient Hebrews and who have continuously lived in their villages in what is present day “Israel” since before the Babylonian Exile.
Still in the thousands at the turn of the century and under the Arabs, they number just over 500 now, and until very recently were severely discriminated against by both secular Zionists and Israeli orthodox.
Indeed, at one point the Israeeli government classified the Samaritan Jews as “Muslims”, even though their connection to ancient Israel is firmer than any later sects or ethnicities in the whole area.
With all these bracelets being worn for the 70,000 or so Mandeans, when are the bracelet people in the some of the synagogues especially, going to start wearing bracelets for their most ancient and genuine co-religionists, who under the Zionists, are close to being extinct.
Do the Samaritans perhaps merit an Israeli Protected Species Act, or is to say that now politiclly incorrect?
Rowan Berkeley
September 14th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Interesting that that Andy Bachman thread has comments that jump effortlessly from Mandeans to Darfurians. As for the Druze, well, they provide all of the ‘trackers’ used by the Israeli army, and also I suspect a great many of the grunts who get blown up (and usually listed without qualification as ‘Israelis’ in casualty reports).
By the way, there’s nothing ‘gnostic’ about Mandeans nowadays, if there ever was. The religion is as staid as any other, certainly not some sort of call to antinomianism and rebellion against the gods that be. After all, it serves the usual social function, of keeping their society distinct from the surrounding societies, regulating marriage, etcetera. You can’t do that if you are simultaneously running around saying “evil, be thou my good.”
Eugene Costa
September 14th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Obviously the “Mandians” are politically useful at the moment. One will also note the “New Age” connection, which is-as I know directly from a few years ago–being much more heavily worked than most of the American public may be aware of.
Eugene Costa
September 14th, 2008 at 11:22 am
corr: “Mandeans”.
Eugene Costa
September 14th, 2008 at 11:49 am
You are confusing, it seems, the Druze in “Israel” and allied with the Israelis, with Bedouin trackers, another ill-used minority:
“The Bedouin tracker who fell on the Israel-Gaza border lived in an unknown village. Tomorrow, the bulldozers could come to demolish his house, leaving his seven children and two wives homeless….”
Nachman Shai
[http://www.ujc.org/page.aspx?id=175157]
Bedouin or Samaritan or else, no doubt the extraordinarily erudite Dr. Kushner, Ph.D, will have no trouble explaining it all, including its “Judaeo-Christian democratic” aspect.
The Israeli Druze’ main complaint, on the other hand, seems to be that they are allowed to serve and prosper in the IDF, but are not allowed to do much else in the “Democracy” that is the Zionist state of “Israel.”
Jonathan
September 14th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Saddam Hussein was one of the great killers in the history of the world. More than that your point does not change the fact that Iran persecutes them.
Jonathan
September 14th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Ah ha selective crticism . Israel has a better human rights record than its enemies do.
Doesn’t mean that Israel ought to be criticized when it does something wrong but you are about selective criticism.
Jonathan
September 14th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
No just telling the truth about those who follow Khomeni and what they are about. I know you would like to cover up such but that is your problem.
Jonathan
September 14th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Shame on Israel for doing so.
At the same time Israel treats its minorites better than its enemies do.
Eugene Costa
September 14th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
The apologies from the Great Book Of Zionist Talking Points continues.
It reminds of when it was officially admitted by Israel that Egyptian POW’s were executed in the desert, unarmed and on the edge of mass graves, very much in the style of the Nazis.
The Zionist apologists found great moral superiority in the fact that they had at least, after long denial, admitted it, whereas their enemies did the same (supposedly) but keep silent.
In fact the Baath Party was founded by a Christian and the Assyrian Christians in Iraq were treated fairly and equally with members of other religions, including Islam, and had arguably higher status in Iraq than any religious minority in Israel.
Tariq Azziz, Hussein’s Foreign Minister, was a Baathist and a Christian, for example.
What high Israeli office is occupied by a Bedouin or Arab or even a Druze or has ever been?
The tragedy of what the United States’ attack on and occupation of Iraq have wrought is well known, including an estimated 1.2 million dead Iraqis, and the destruction of the most secular, and one of the most urbane and civilized states, in the Arab World.
Was Saddam Hussein a brutal dictator? Yes and no, he was considerably more intelligent than any brute (he seldom held grudges for example) and he was far from absolute dictator even at his peak.
He balanced the various factions off against one another cunningly, and, outside of the war with Iran or civil war against the Kurds, the number of his political opponents who were executed or assassinated was surely no more in the hundreds or so annually.
But that is all irrelevant.
The comedy has not really been plumbed, on the other hand.
One aspect is that Hussein began as a US client, and actually sought permission–seemingly given by April Glaspie–to invade Kuwait before the First Gulf War.
Another is the fact that in supposedly seeking to bring the “Bin Laden” behind 9-11 to justice, the US attacked an Iraq where “Bin Laden” and “Al Qaeda” had always been unwelcome as religious fanatics.
Yet another is the Bush administration sponsoring the dispatch of various Protestant missionaries to Iraq to convert the heathen, seemingly completely ignorant of the fact that the Assyrians were already Christian, and have been for two millennia, and highly resented being proselytized by Born Again ignoramuses from the United States, especially while being bombed, shot, arrested, tortured, and so forth, as Baathists and having their infrastructure destroyed and simple daily necessities interrupted.
Proselytizing among the Iraqi Muslims, on the other hand, served only to confirm the futility learned long ago by such Roman Catholic missionaries as Raymond Lull, and confirmed the invasion and occupation as in the image of religious war and the last Great Crusade.
All of this, however, is still just scratching the surface.
Eugene Costa
September 14th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
The essence of demonization is rhetorically quite simple, to wit: whatever “we” do or have done or will do it is not as bad as what “our” enemy does or has done or will do.
The United States and Israel are not the only nations that have used the device and its asymmetry as the moral and ethical answer to all criticism. Britain too, including Churchill, also used it, as did Germany under Hitler.
Pointed Revelations
September 14th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
POINTED REVELATIONS REPORTS…
“McCain’s Ties to Shadowy Security Company Confirmedâ€
(revised September 14, 2008)
John McCain makes occasional mention of his friend, Admiral Chuck Larson, whose distinguished career includes the command of nuclear submarines and the management of the Naval Academy.
Not as well known but by no means concealed is Larson’s link to Washington’s ViaGlobal Group, the successor company to ViaFinance and Galway Partners.
In 2004, ViaGlobal was serving as the “business incubator†for Rosetta Research and Consulting LLC, best known as the company involved in luring Afghan tribal chieftain and accused drug kingpin Haji Bashar Noorzai to the U.S., where he was arrested in April of 2005.
Rosetta’s Department of Defense sponsors, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld, brokered an introduction to CNN military commentator General David Grange, who serves as an advisor to ViaGlobal.
Grange made the initial arrangements between Rosetta, represented by former Katten Muchin Zavis Rosenman partner and ex-NSC attorney Joseph Myers, now with the International Monetary Fund, and ViaGlobal’s chairman, Frank Gren.
Another former Katten Muchin Zavis Rosenman partner, Carole Van Cleefe, brokered a deal between Rosetta and Oracle. Oracle project managers Barbara Bleiweiss and Peter Bloom attempted to establish a joint venture using an existing contract vehicle with the Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force (FTTTF), but was unsuccessful due to Rosetta’s cost demands.
Gren and his colleagues sought to obtain additional funding for Rosetta, as millions of dollars in investment money had been spent on payments to secure the confidence of Noorzai. Myers, Gren, and others sought sources of funding such as a contract with the FBI as well as an investment from fallen tobacco lawyer Dickie Scruggs.
ViaGlobal appears to have used McCain, acting through staffer Chris Paul, to divert a 2004 FBI internal investigation into dealings between Rosetta contractors and certain FBI employees. This was the subject of a meeting held with the FBI’s Deputy Director John Pistole in late 2004. Paul convinced Pistole and others at the FBI that Rosetta and ViaGlobal were pursuing Noorzai, a “high value target” designated by Bush as part of an operation ordered by Rumsfeld and overseen by Wolfowitz.
Nonetheless, in mid 2006, the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General conducted an investigation into criminal activities of the same FBI employees. Rosetta’s phone, email, and contractual records were subpoenaed. In addition, several Rosetta officials and advisors were questioned for several weeks.
Papers filed as part of the Noorzai case show that Rosetta, acting under the orders of senior U.S. officials, promised Noorzai he would not be arrested. Rosetta also paid substantial sums to various foreign government officials who then lied to Noorzai about the actual purpose of the meetings. Noorzai had been indicted as a drug kingpin, and since efforts to secure his cooperation in other matters had failed, the decision was made to bring him to the United States and arrest him.
The papers also show that Rosetta sought and obtained in excess of ten million dollars from investors, who believed they were investing in a security company.
Instead, the money was being used to finance the lavish and extensive travel needed to locate Noorzai and gain his confidence. The investors are understandably upset, but since the Rosetta principals are known only as “Mike†and “Brian†no success has been had in locating them.
Rosetta also had improper relationships with a handful of FBI employees, who were later investigated for contributing to Rosetta’s alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices and Neutrality Acts.
As part of the incubation arrangement, ViaGlobal sought to obtain ownership of Rosetta’s proprietary database of terrorist financiers as well as access to the extensive network of contacts in the Middle East developed as part of the dealings with Noorzai.
Jonathan
September 14th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
The apologies from the Great Book Of Zionist Talking Points continues.
OH IF SOMEONE POINTS OUT SOMETHING YOU LEFT OUT IT IS A ‘ZIONIST TALKING POINT.
It reminds of when it was officially admitted by Israel that Egyptian POW’s were executed in the desert, unarmed and on the edge of mass graves, very much in the style of the Nazis.
IF THAT IS ALL THE NAZI DID THEN THEY WOULD NOT BE AS INFAMOUS AS THEY ARE.
FIRST TIME WAR ATTROCITY IN HISTORY?
EVEN WITH THAT EVENT THERE IS NO COMPARISON TO ISRAEL AND ITS ENEMIES.
SADDAM KILLED 300,000 THAT IS MORE LIKE THE NAZIS THAN ISRAEL.
BUT YOU DON’T COMPARE SADDAM TO THE NAZIS.
BUT I KOW WHY YOU COMPARE ISREAL TO THE NAZIS YOU DO IT TO
A) MAKE THE HOLOCAUST SEEM LESS THAN IT WAS – THAT KIND OF ACTION IS COMMON SO THE HOLOCAUST WASN’T A UNIQUE EVENT
B) SINCE ISRAEL DOES WHAT THE NAZIS DID WHAT WAS DONE TO THEM WASN’T SO BAD.
YOU ARE A FAKE AND A DISINFORMATION ARTIST AND A BIGOT TOO.
The Zionist apologists found great moral superiority in the fact that they had at least, after long denial, admitted it, whereas their enemies did the same (supposedly) but keep silent.
In fact the Baath Party was founded by a Christian and the Assyrian Christians in Iraq were treated fairly and equally with members of other religions, including Islam, and had arguably higher status in Iraq than any religious minority in Israel.
Tariq Azziz, Hussein’s Foreign Minister, was a Baathist and a Christian, for example.
What high Israeli office is occupied by a Bedouin or Arab or even a Druze or has ever been?
WHY ARE THERE ALMOST NO JEWS IN ARAB LANDS?
WHAT DID SADDAM DO TO THE KURDS.
SADDAM WAS ONE OF THE GREAT KILLERS OF THE `20 TH CENTURY.
The tragedy of what the United States’ attack on and occupation of Iraq have wrought is well known, including an estimated 1.2 million dead Iraqis, and the destruction of the most secular, and one of the most urbane and civilized states, in the Arab World.
YOUR 1.2 FIGURE HAS BEEN DEBUNKED FUTHERMORE
The 655,000 number has been debunked.
Also why ought the US be charged with those the insurgents or Al Qaeda kill?
And in fact the US ought not be charged for insurgents dead either.
Quote:
How to explain the enormous discrepancy between The Lancet’s estimation of Iraqi war deaths and those from studies that used other methodologies? For starters, the authors of the Lancet study followed a model that ensured that even minor components of the data, when extrapolated over the whole population, would yield huge differences in the death toll. Skeptical commentators have highlighted questionable assumptions, implausible data, and ideological leanings among the authors, Gilbert Burnham, Riyadh Lafta, and Les Roberts.
Some critics go so far as to suggest that the field research on which the study is based may have been performed improperly — or not at all. The key person involved in collecting the data — Lafta, the researcher who assembled the survey teams, deployed them throughout Iraq, and assembled the results — has refused to answer questions about his methods.
Some of these questions could be resolved if other researchers had access to the surveyors’ original field reports and response forms. The authors have released files of collated survey results but not the original survey reports, citing security concerns and the fact that some information was not recorded or preserved in the first place. This was a legitimate problem, and it underscored the difficulty of conducting research in a war zone.
Each death recorded by the Hopkins surveyors in 2006 extrapolated to 2,000 deaths in the Iraqi population.
“Over the past several months, National Journal has examined the 2006 Lancet article, and another [PDF] that some of the same authors published in 2004; probed the problems of estimating wartime mortality rates; and interviewed the authors and their critics. NJ has identified potential problems with the research that fall under three broad headings: 1) possible flaws in the design and execution of the study; 2) a lack of transparency in the data, which has raised suspicions of fraud; and 3) political preferences held by the authors and the funders, which include George Soros’s Open Society Institute. ”
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm
SADDAM WOULD HAVE KILLED OFF THE KURDS AND ATTACKED KUWAIT AGAIN. US POLICY STOPPED HIM
TAKING DOWN SADDAM SAVED LIVES. LIVES SAVED CAUSE OF US ACTIONS COUNT TOO, NOT IN YOUR BOOK BUT THE STILL COUNT.
Was Saddam Hussein a brutal dictator? Yes and no, he was considerably more intelligent than any brute (he seldom held grudges for example) and he was far from absolute dictator even at his peak.
HE WAS ONE OF THE GREAT KILLERS WORSE THAN IDI AMIN.
He balanced the various factions off against one another cunningly, and, outside of the war with Iran or civil war against the Kurds, the number of his political opponents who were executed or assassinated was surely no more in the hundreds or so annually.
SADDAM KILLED MORE THAN IDI AMIN AND HE WANTED MORE.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/tyrants.htm
But that is all irrelevant.
The comedy has not really been plumbed, on the other hand.
One aspect is that Hussein began as a US client, and actually sought permission–seemingly given by April Glaspie–to invade Kuwait before the First Gulf War.
MISINFORMATION.
Proponents of deterrence also argue that since nobody has ever actually tried to deter Saddam Hussein from attacking another country, how can we claim that doing so will be difficult in the future? The example most often cited is the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, where the common wisdom holds that because of the botched messages he received from the American ambassador, April Glaspie, Iraq had no reason to believe we would fight.
In fact, all the evidence indicates the opposite: Saddam Hussein believed it was highly likely that the United States would try to liberate Kuwait, but convinced himself that we would send only lightly armed, rapidly deployable forces that would be quickly destroyed by his 120,000-man Republican Guard. After this, he assumed, Washington would acquiesce to his conquest.
Much of the evidence for this remains classified, but at least two points can be made using public material: Tariq Aziz has told reporters that this was what Saddam Hussein thought at the time; and we know that when the Republican Guards invaded Kuwait they moved quickly — even before they had consolidated control over the country — to set up defenses along Kuwait’s borders and against amphibious and airborne landings.
In other words, Saddam Hussein thinks we tried to deter him, and that we failed. He was ready and willing to fight the United States for Kuwait.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D07E5DF123DF932A15751C0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
Another is the fact that in supposedly seeking to bring the “Bin Laden†behind 9-11 to justice, the US attacked an Iraq where “Bin Laden†and “Al Qaeda†had always been unwelcome as religious fanatics.
SADDAM SUPPORTED TERROR ,SADDAM CONTINUED TO THREATEN KUWAIT.
YOU SADDAM APOLOGIST.
Yet another is the Bush administration sponsoring the dispatch of various Protestant missionaries to Iraq to convert the heathen, seemingly completely ignorant of the fact that the Assyrians were already Christian, and have been for two millennia, and highly resented being proselytized by Born Again ignoramuses from the United States, especially while being bombed, shot, arrested, tortured, and so forth, as Baathists and having their infrastructure destroyed and simple daily necessities interrupted.
GETTING RID OF SADDAM GOT HIM TO GIVE UP HIS WAR.
AS BONUS SLAVES WERE FREED FROM A DICTATOR.
Jonathan
September 14th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
1. OH IF SOMEONE POINTS OUT SOMETHING YOU LEFT OUT IT IS A ‘ZIONIST TALKING POINT.
2.
EVEN WITH THAT EVENT THERE IS NO COMPARISON TO ISRAEL AND ITS ENEMIES.
SADDAM KILLED 300,000 THAT IS MORE LIKE THE NAZIS THAN ISRAEL.
BUT YOU DON’T COMPARE SADDAM TO THE NAZIS.
3.
WHY ARE THERE ALMOST NO JEWS IN ARAB LANDS?
WHAT DID SADDAM DO TO THE KURDS.
WHAT DID SADDAM DO TO THE MARSH ARABS
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0519-02.htm
SADDAM WAS ONE OF THE GREAT KILLERS OF THE `20 TH CENTURY.
YOUR 1.2 FIGURE HAS BEEN DEBUNKED FUTHERMORE
The 655,000 number has been debunked.
Also why ought the US be charged with those the insurgents or Al Qaeda kill?
And in fact the US ought not be charged for insurgents dead either.
Quote:
How to explain the enormous discrepancy between The Lancet’s estimation of Iraqi war deaths and those from studies that used other methodologies? For starters, the authors of the Lancet study followed a model that ensured that even minor components of the data, when extrapolated over the whole population, would yield huge differences in the death toll. Skeptical commentators have highlighted questionable assumptions, implausible data, and ideological leanings among the authors, Gilbert Burnham, Riyadh Lafta, and Les Roberts.
Some critics go so far as to suggest that the field research on which the study is based may have been performed improperly — or not at all. The key person involved in collecting the data — Lafta, the researcher who assembled the survey teams, deployed them throughout Iraq, and assembled the results — has refused to answer questions about his methods.
Some of these questions could be resolved if other researchers had access to the surveyors’ original field reports and response forms. The authors have released files of collated survey results but not the original survey reports, citing security concerns and the fact that some information was not recorded or preserved in the first place. This was a legitimate problem, and it underscored the difficulty of conducting research in a war zone.
Each death recorded by the Hopkins surveyors in 2006 extrapolated to 2,000 deaths in the Iraqi population.
“Over the past several months, National Journal has examined the 2006 Lancet article, and another [PDF] that some of the same authors published in 2004; probed the problems of estimating wartime mortality rates; and interviewed the authors and their critics. NJ has identified potential problems with the research that fall under three broad headings: 1) possible flaws in the design and execution of the study; 2) a lack of transparency in the data, which has raised suspicions of fraud; and 3) political preferences held by the authors and the funders, which include George Soros’s Open Society Institute. ”
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm
SADDAM WOULD HAVE KILLED OFF THE KURDS AND ATTACKED KUWAIT AGAIN. US POLICY STOPPED HIM
TAKING DOWN SADDAM SAVED LIVES. LIVES SAVED CAUSE OF US ACTIONS COUNT TOO, NOT IN YOUR BOOK BUT THE STILL COUNT.
5
SADDAM KILLED MORE THAN IDI AMIN AND HE WANTED MORE.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/tyrants.htm
6.
One aspect is that Hussein began as a US client, and actually sought permission–seemingly given by April Glaspie–to invade Kuwait before the First Gulf War.
MISINFORMATION.
Proponents of deterrence also argue that since nobody has ever actually tried to deter Saddam Hussein from attacking another country, how can we claim that doing so will be difficult in the future? The example most often cited is the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, where the common wisdom holds that because of the botched messages he received from the American ambassador, April Glaspie, Iraq had no reason to believe we would fight.
In fact, all the evidence indicates the opposite: Saddam Hussein believed it was highly likely that the United States would try to liberate Kuwait, but convinced himself that we would send only lightly armed, rapidly deployable forces that would be quickly destroyed by his 120,000-man Republican Guard. After this, he assumed, Washington would acquiesce to his conquest.
Much of the evidence for this remains classified, but at least two points can be made using public material: Tariq Aziz has told reporters that this was what Saddam Hussein thought at the time; and we know that when the Republican Guards invaded Kuwait they moved quickly — even before they had consolidated control over the country — to set up defenses along Kuwait’s borders and against amphibious and airborne landings.
In other words, Saddam Hussein thinks we tried to deter him, and that we failed. He was ready and willing to fight the United States for Kuwait.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D07E5DF123DF932A15751C0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
7.
SADDAM SUPPORTED TERROR ,SADDAM CONTINUED TO THREATEN KUWAIT.
YOU SADDAM APOLOGIST.
GETTING RID OF SADDAM GOT HIM TO GIVE UP HIS WAR.
AS BONUS SLAVES WERE FREED FROM A DICTATOR.
6
Jonathan
September 14th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
When the US gets its way
South Korea
when the US doesn’t get its way
North Korea
Jonathan
September 14th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Well look at this you ignorant dope.
Behind Algeria, on a score of 110.55, come North Korea, Burma, Indonesia, Libya, Colombia, Syria, Iraq, Yugoslavia and China. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan and Nigeria follow closely. The United Kingdom comes 141st; a good score on a global basis but not so admirable when compared with other rich, industrialised countries – we are seventh out of 23.->
A country with a wretched record of human rights abuse could score a maximum total of 190. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq proves the winner of the unmodified list – which measures human rights abuses outside of their economic context – with an unadjusted score of 155.
International sanctions and the legacy of Saddam’s two wars against Iraq and the United Nations over Kuwait, which have crippled Iraq, give it a low rating on the UN’s human development index. Iraq’s new-found impoverishment catapults it down the list, leaving Algeria in poll position.
http://www.algeria-watch.de/mrv/mrvrap/observe4.htm
Yes sir the US has all the right enemies
us versus them. There is no comparison.
Jonathan
September 14th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Khomeni followers are bigots
Lear k
September 14th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Ever wondered that most of these so-called terrorism experts have a very strong connection to a certain entity in the middle east.They all have advance knoweldge of what is going to happen.
Jonathan
September 14th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
lives saved cause of us actions count too. not in your book but the still count.
Jonathan
September 14th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Bathists , Khomeni followers and Al Qaedists are evil .
Eugene Costa
September 14th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
The essence of Neo-Con and Born Again–accuse any putative opponent of doing exactly what one does, and do it first.
This aims at knocking off several different birds with one stone.
First, especially if naive, the opponent is put on the defensive and off balance, and is asked to answer a point, which is really no point at all–and in seeming to deny seems to acknowledge some effect–thus validity?–in the attack.
Second, the attack serves as a useful distraction and cover-up of one’s own tactics.
Third, at the very least, in any sort of seeming debate, the issue seems moot.
The key to remember in a situation as in the debate above is that Dr. Harvey Kushner, Ph.D and his ilk, aim only at the audience, and consider that audience quite stupid and malleable. Facts are insignificant and may just be invented, but said confidently, while every fact of the opponent is denied or put in doubt by asking for a source, for example, or with the demonization formula above, which is usually concessive–”Well, that might be true but X is still not as bad as Y”.
Debates are usually a waste of time, and training in debating, which has so long been central in secondary education, law school, and so forth, is mostly worthless. The great use of the above debate, however, is to disseminate widely, as an example and specimen, just what someone like Dr. Harvey Kushner, Ph.D. is actually saying for effect to a narrower audience.
Note also another tactic–Dr. Harvey Kushner, Ph.D., did indeed shake Horton’s hand (even warmly with both mits) before the start of the debate.
Horton latter refers to Dr. Harvey Kushner, Ph.D. in the course of making his points as “Harvey”.
Did Horton really believe an uneducated fraud of a gutternsnipe like Dr. Harvey Kushner, Ph. D., was actually going to be “friendly” in return, unless it suited his purposes?
Eugene Costa
September 14th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
The Neo-Cons and Zionists and Rove, et al., must consider both this site and its blogs important enough to wrestle with during the course of the presidential election.
Eugene Costa
September 14th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Notice also in the poster, the Manichean dyad of either A or (aut) B (mutual exclusion) operating “morally” and as a matter of good and evil, to wit:
(1) Saddam Hussein was a BAD MAN.
(2) A BAD MAN can do nothing GOOD.
(3) Because Saddam Hussein was a BAD MAN, everything he did was BAD, and overthrowing him was GOOD.
(4) Not considering everything Saddam Hussein did BAD, is saying Saddam Hussein did GOOD THINGS.
(5) Saying Saddam Hussein did GOOD THINGS is saying Saddam Huessein was not a BAD MAN.
(6) Saying Saddam Hussein was not a BAD MAN is saying Saddam Hussein was a GOOD MAN.
(7) Not saying that Saddam Hussein was a BAD MAN and that everything he did was a BAD THING is being an APOLOGIST for Saddam Hussein.
Black and white, good and evil, who is not for is against.
After Charlie Chan, etc. etc. etc.
Andy
September 14th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Reply to point #3 Mr Shill.
A better question would be; “What did Hussein do to the United States or Americans”? The answer of course is absolutely nothing. Now please just go away and shill on some other website.
Andy
September 14th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
THE WORLD would be better off if the U.S. would just mind its own business. Americans would be better off too.
richard vajs
September 14th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Charlie Chan movies usually had a formula ending – Charlie would announce to a gathered group, “One of you is murderer”; then the lights would go out; then a woman would scream; then the lights would come back on; and one of Charlie’s sons (usually Number One Son) would be wrestling with the guilty party. Comforting in its predictability, perhaps. Also predictable, on this blog, is the Jonathan or Tim R character with their lame logic and obvious sophism taking on all comers in their defense of Zionism. I just wish that the ADL or whatever organization sponsors these guys would try something more original. It is always the same Grade B dialogue – “why do you pick on Israel?”, “everyone else does it too!”, “they started it first”. Doesn’t the ADL or AIPAC have anyone brighter?
Glendon Wayne
September 14th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
I composed it yesterday.
Jonathan
September 14th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
You could find good stuff to say about Kim Il Sung, or Stalin. I would guess that Pol Pot intended to have health care for everyone.
FACTS
Saddam was a worse killer than Idi Amin,
He continued to threaten Kuwait.
He intended to kill the Kurds
He killed the marsh arabs.
He supported terror
Saddam was not in compliance.
He intended to re arm
Getting rid of Saddam saved lives
Jonathan
September 14th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Yep anyone who says something that you disagree with .
Is a neo con and a zionist.
For the record I think that zionism is a bad idea. Not evil one just, perhaps a well intentioned one nevertheless not a good idea.
That doesn’t change what Al Qaeda , The Khomeni followers and the Bathists are about.
Jonathan
September 14th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Scott Horton doesn’t have his fact correct.
Kenneth
September 14th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
From all appearances it requires a certain baseline of stupidity to internalize the neoconservative purview. I have met a great many such people in my eighteen year existence, my parents included, and none of them could be characterized as intelligent. One encounters a marked aptitude for casuistry among these latter day Brownshirts rivaled by few other political species, and, as was implied in Eugene Costa’s disquisition, there is an uncanny psychological parallelism between these types and their chosen scapegoats. Bob Altemeyer’s timeless book can doubtless shed light upon this phenomenon: http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf
Jonathan
September 14th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Ah ha everyone who disagrees w/ you is a ziomist and a member of the ADL .
That doesn’t change the fact that you enagaged in selective one sided criticism.
Doesn’t change the fact that you don’t have any answers.
Case closed.
Jonathan
September 14th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Anti war is a brown shirt site.
I mean you guys luv Ron Paul who took money from White Supremists.
and you luv Pat Buccanan.
Kenneth
September 14th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Nonsense. What proof do you have that Saddam continued to threaten Kuwait? The man did not support “terror”, as the American government would later reveal: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5328592.stm and the invasion of Iraq has cost over a million Iraqi lives: http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78. Your absurd inference that invading Iraq “saved lives” is demonstrably false; one million Iraqis would not have suffered violent deaths over the course of five years but for the invasion. What you outline above are not facts but factoids.
Finally, Jonathan, whilst we’re on the topic, what do you say to the American government supporting terror far beyond what Saddam was alleged to have done? Come on, the world’s number terrorist organization can’t have slipped that far under your radar.
Jonathan
September 14th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
He tried to kill a US president
He shot at US planes
He supported terror groups.
He incited violence.
And he continued to try get Kuwait.
One of the reasons he wanted Kuwait was to use gulf oil to blackmail the US into foreign policy changed
The US didn’t have to allow Saddam to become a lot more powerful at the expense of the US. He didn’t have a right to Kuwait and the US didn’t have to let him have it.
Jonathan
September 14th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Andy you are an ignorant F**K
Kenneth
September 14th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Ron Paul has taken money exclusively from private donors and can’t possibly be held accountable for the views of all of them, much less sullied by association. And you won’t find us advocating war, militarism, authoritarianism, corporatism, the abrogation of the rule of law, or all the other wonderful things the Neocons have brought us- the classic hallmarks of fascism.
Kenneth
September 14th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Surely, it is not quite so calumnious as labeling everyone you disagree with as apologists for “Islamofascism”?
Jonathan
September 14th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
DOW JONES REPRINTS
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers, use the Order Reprints tool at the bottom of any article or visit:
http://www.djreprints.com.
• See a sample reprint in PDF format.
• Order a reprint of this article now.
Saddam’s Terror Links
March 24, 2008
Five years on, few Iraq myths are as persistent as the notion that the Bush Administration invented a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Yet a new Pentagon report suggests that Iraq’s links to world-wide terror networks, including al Qaeda, were far more extensive than previously understood.
Naturally, it’s getting little or no attention. Press accounts have been misleading or outright distortions, while the Bush Administration seems indifferent. Even John McCain has let the study’s revelations float by. But that doesn’t make the facts any less notable or true.
The redacted version of “Saddam and Terrorism” is the most definitive public assessment to date from the Harmony program, the trove of “exploitable” documents, audio and video records, and computer files captured in Iraq. On the basis of about 600,000 items, the report lays out Saddam’s willingness to use terrorism against American and other international targets, as well as his larger state sponsorship of terror, which included harboring, training and equipping jihadis throughout the Middle East.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120631495290958169.html
Jonathan
September 14th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120631495290958169.html
Saddam’s Terror Links
March 24, 2008
Five years on, few Iraq myths are as persistent as the notion that the Bush Administration invented a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Yet a new Pentagon report suggests that Iraq’s links to world-wide terror networks, including al Qaeda, were far more extensive than previously understood.
Naturally, it’s getting little or no attention. Press accounts have been misleading or outright distortions, while the Bush Administration seems indifferent. Even John McCain has let the study’s revelations float by. But that doesn’t make the facts any less notable or true.
The redacted version of “Saddam and Terrorism” is the most definitive public assessment to date from the Harmony program, the trove of “exploitable” documents, audio and video records, and computer files captured in Iraq. On the basis of about 600,000 items, the report lays out Saddam’s willingness to use terrorism against American and other international targets, as well as his larger state sponsorship of terror, which included harboring, training and equipping jihadis throughout the Middle East.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120631495290958169.html
Kenneth
September 14th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Again, the American government has confirmed that there was no link between Saddam and terror. Your entire thesis rests upon an “assessment” by an obscure group that has not been able to capture Washington’s attention. It can only surmised that is comprised entirely of apocrypha.
Kenneth
September 14th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
It should be added that the alleged “link” has been extensively falsified, whereas this report produces no collaboration. Reason to doubt it, methinks.
Kenneth
September 14th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
The full Senate report: http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf
Jonathan
September 14th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
My info is more up to date. You can’t cover it up.
Sorry documents SHOW WITHOUT A DOUBT THAT SADDAM SUPPORTED TERROR CASE CLOSED.
Saddam’s Terror Links
March 24, 2008
Five years on, few Iraq myths are as persistent as the notion that the Bush Administration invented a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Yet a new Pentagon report suggests that Iraq’s links to world-wide terror networks, including al Qaeda, were far more extensive than previously understood.
Naturally, it’s getting little or no attention. Press accounts have been misleading or outright distortions, while the Bush Administration seems indifferent. Even John McCain has let the study’s revelations float by. But that doesn’t make the facts any less notable or true.
The redacted version of “Saddam and Terrorism” is the most definitive public assessment to date from the Harmony program, the trove of “exploitable” documents, audio and video records, and computer files captured in Iraq. On the basis of about 600,000 items, the report lays out Saddam’s willingness to use terrorism against American and other international targets, as well as his larger state sponsorship of terror, which included harboring, training and equipping jihadis throughout the Middle East.
“The rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam’s ‘coercion’ toolbox, not only cost effective but a formal instrument of state power,” the authors conclude. Throughout the 1990s, the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) cooperated with Hamas; the Palestine Liberation Front, which maintained a Baghdad office; Force 17, Yasser Arafat’s private army; and others. The IIS gave commando training for members of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the organization that assassinated Anwar Sadat and whose “emir” was Ayman al-Zawahiri, who became Osama bin Laden’s second-in-command when the group merged with al Qaeda in 1998.
At the very least the report should dispel the notion that outwardly “secular” Saddam would never consort with religious types like al Qaeda. A pan-Arab nationalist, Saddam viewed radical Islamists as potential allies, and they likewise. According to a 1993 memo, Saddam decided to “form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia,” where al Qaeda was then working with warlords against U.S. humanitarian forces. Saddam also trained Sudanese fighters in Iraq.
The Pentagon report cites this as “a tactical example” of their cooperation. When Saddam “was ordering action in Somalia aimed at the American presence, Osama bin Laden was doing the same thing.” Saddam took an interest in “far-flung terrorist groups . . . to locate any organization whose services he might use in the future.” The Harmony documents “reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda — as long as that organization’s near-term goals supported Saddam’s long-term version.”
For 20 years, such “support” included using Fedayeen Saddam training camps to school terrorists, especially Palestinians but also non-Iraqis “directly associated” with al Qaeda, continuing up to the fall of Baghdad. Saddam also provided financial support and weapons, amounting to “a state-directed program of significant scale.” In July 2001, the regime began patronizing a terror cartel in Bahrain calling itself the Army of Muhammad, which, according to an Iraqi memo, “is under the wings of bin Laden.”
It’s true that the Pentagon report found no “smoking gun,” i.e., a direct connection on a joint Iraq-al Qaeda operation. Supposedly this vindicates the view that Iraq’s liberation was launched on false premises. But the Administration was always cautious, with Colin Powell alleging merely a “sinister nexus” in his 2003 U.N. speech. If anything, sinister is an understatement. The main Iraq intelligence failure was over WMD, but the report indicates that the CIA also underestimated Saddam’s ties to global terror cartels.
The Administration has always maintained that Iraq is just one front in the war on terror; and the report offers “evidence of logistical preparation for terrorist operations in other nations, including those in the West.” In 2002, an IIS memo explained to Saddam that Iraqi embassies were stockpiling weapons, while many of the terrorists trained in Fedayeen camps were dispatched to London with counterfeit documents, where they circulated throughout Europe.
Around the same time, the IIS began to manufacture better improvised explosive devices “designed to be used in civilian areas,” and the regime bureaucratized suicide operations, with local Baath Party leaders competing to provide recruits for Saddam as part of a “Martyrdom Project.”
All of these are inconvenient facts for those who want to assert that somehow Saddam could have been easily contained and presented no threat to the U.S. The Harmony files buttress the case that the decision to oust Saddam was the right one — which makes it all the more puzzling that the Bush Administration is mum. It isn’t the first time the White House has ceded the Iraq debate to its opponents.
See all of today’s editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal1.
And add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum2.
j4ck
September 14th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
You know that Saddam has been hunting and torturing these guys to death, right? You know that the nr1 enemies of the jihadist groups are the local dictatorships, you know that the US government has confirmed that there where no links whatsoever between Saddam and Al-Qaeda right?
So why are you posting this bullshit?
Actual Osama Bin Laden quote: ‘the land of the Arab world, the land is like a mother, and Saddam Hussein is fucking his mother.’
All studies show that the financial support for terrorism comes from americas closest ‘allies’…you know all the nice little dictatorships that are kept alive by american money, training and weapons.
Michael Scheuer:
“For about four weeks in late 2002 and early 2003, I and several others were engaged full time in searching CIA files — seven days a week, often far more than eight hours a day. At the end of the effort, we had gone back ten years in the files and had reviewed nearly twenty thousand documents that amounted to well over fifty thousand pages of materials…. There was no information that remotely supported the analysis that claimed there was a strong working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. I was embarrassed because this reality invalidated the analysis I had presented on the subject in my book.”
Kenneth
September 14th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
You’re still unable to collate this report with anything, as it contradicts the conclusions of every major intelligence agency in the world. We don’t know what the “harmony program” is, but logic dictates that the current administration would seize upon such a report if it saw it as having any credibility. You’ll have to cite a more respectable agency if you wish to sway me.
Andy
September 14th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
No You are. You are so ignorant it is almost laughable.
Eugene Costa
September 14th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
The Neo-Cons are obviously mounting a concerted disinformation effort in regard to the attack on Iraq, perhaps for the election, and perhaps also in regard to possible impeachment or later prosecution of the Bush Administration and its officials for falsely connecting 9-11 to Iraq, thus justifying what has turned out to be an utter disaster for all concerned, with the possible exception of the oil companies.
Note also that the Russians are now in the mix, and perhaps are sitting on information in regard to Iraq that puts the Bush and Cheney administration in even worse light.
The intended audience, whatever it is, is surely domestic.
Nowadays the WSJ and the NYT, both of which once upon a time had their moments as useful newspapers, are completely under the thumb of the Neo-Cons and allies. Indeed, even the Christian Science Monitor seems to be going down the same road.
Redsaunas
September 14th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Sounds like a terrific idea. If the US goes home and stops bothering them, I’m sure they will give up their war.
There’s just the little matter of all that ‘oil’. Oh well, I guess that means the war goes on…and on…and on…and on…
Kenneth
September 14th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
A truly insidious thing, the neoconservative ideology. I had long thought that the CSM was free of the corporate media’s stultifying grip, though evidently you know otherwise. What explains the proliferation of neocon reasoning in even this “independent” periodical?
Eugene Costa
September 14th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
I said “seems” advisedly, and have begun to notice it only fairly recently. With the WSJ and the NYT, it is easily explained, but the CSM surprises me as much as it seems to surprise you.
So no, right now I don’t “know” but am suspicious, and not just from reading this that piece. One will see.
Nike
September 15th, 2008 at 5:39 am
Thanks for the laughs, Johnny! I love it when Chimp’s war pigs justify Chimp’s war crimes in a tone of… MORAL OUTRAGE! Yessir, nothing like hearing the apologists and supporters of war criminals acting INDIGNANT while they cheer on men whom they KNOW are running torture chambers. LMAO, that’ll cover you.
God Bless America.
jonathan
September 15th, 2008 at 6:05 am
nevertheless Saddam did support terror groups including those with connections to Al Qaeda .
Just cause you deny the facts does not make it otherwise
jonathan
September 15th, 2008 at 6:09 am
Whatever bad stuff the US did or did not do . Let me give you this message stopping Saddam, Bathists , Al Qaedist, and Khomeni followers is a good thing. It is a form of justice .
By the way stopping Al Qaedists , Bathists , Khomeni followers stops torture.
That counts and lives saved cause of US actions count too not in your book but they still count.
jonathan
September 15th, 2008 at 6:12 am
Saddam did support terror groups.
Where was Abu Nidal’s last address?
Plus Saddam did have links to groups that were linked to Al Qaeda.
The Wall Street Journal is a better source of info that antiwar.com
jonathan
September 15th, 2008 at 6:14 am
REPOST:
My info is more up to date. You can’t cover it up.
Sorry documents SHOW WITHOUT A DOUBT THAT SADDAM SUPPORTED TERROR CASE CLOSED.
Saddam’s Terror Links
March 24, 2008
Five years on, few Iraq myths are as persistent as the notion that the Bush Administration invented a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Yet a new Pentagon report suggests that Iraq’s links to world-wide terror networks, including al Qaeda, were far more extensive than previously understood.
Naturally, it’s getting little or no attention. Press accounts have been misleading or outright distortions, while the Bush Administration seems indifferent. Even John McCain has let the study’s revelations float by. But that doesn’t make the facts any less notable or true.
The redacted version of “Saddam and Terrorism†is the most definitive public assessment to date from the Harmony program, the trove of “exploitable†documents, audio and video records, and computer files captured in Iraq. On the basis of about 600,000 items, the report lays out Saddam’s willingness to use terrorism against American and other international targets, as well as his larger state sponsorship of terror, which included harboring, training and equipping jihadis throughout the Middle East.
“The rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam’s ‘coercion’ toolbox, not only cost effective but a formal instrument of state power,†the authors conclude. Throughout the 1990s, the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) cooperated with Hamas; the Palestine Liberation Front, which maintained a Baghdad office; Force 17, Yasser Arafat’s private army; and others. The IIS gave commando training for members of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the organization that assassinated Anwar Sadat and whose “emir†was Ayman al-Zawahiri, who became Osama bin Laden’s second-in-command when the group merged with al Qaeda in 1998.
At the very least the report should dispel the notion that outwardly “secular†Saddam would never consort with religious types like al Qaeda. A pan-Arab nationalist, Saddam viewed radical Islamists as potential allies, and they likewise. According to a 1993 memo, Saddam decided to “form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia,†where al Qaeda was then working with warlords against U.S. humanitarian forces. Saddam also trained Sudanese fighters in Iraq.
The Pentagon report cites this as “a tactical example†of their cooperation. When Saddam “was ordering action in Somalia aimed at the American presence, Osama bin Laden was doing the same thing.†Saddam took an interest in “far-flung terrorist groups . . . to locate any organization whose services he might use in the future.†The Harmony documents “reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda — as long as that organization’s near-term goals supported Saddam’s long-term version.â€
For 20 years, such “support†included using Fedayeen Saddam training camps to school terrorists, especially Palestinians but also non-Iraqis “directly associated†with al Qaeda, continuing up to the fall of Baghdad. Saddam also provided financial support and weapons, amounting to “a state-directed program of significant scale.†In July 2001, the regime began patronizing a terror cartel in Bahrain calling itself the Army of Muhammad, which, according to an Iraqi memo, “is under the wings of bin Laden.â€
It’s true that the Pentagon report found no “smoking gun,†i.e., a direct connection on a joint Iraq-al Qaeda operation. Supposedly this vindicates the view that Iraq’s liberation was launched on false premises. But the Administration was always cautious, with Colin Powell alleging merely a “sinister nexus†in his 2003 U.N. speech. If anything, sinister is an understatement. The main Iraq intelligence failure was over WMD, but the report indicates that the CIA also underestimated Saddam’s ties to global terror cartels.
The Administration has always maintained that Iraq is just one front in the war on terror; and the report offers “evidence of logistical preparation for terrorist operations in other nations, including those in the West.†In 2002, an IIS memo explained to Saddam that Iraqi embassies were stockpiling weapons, while many of the terrorists trained in Fedayeen camps were dispatched to London with counterfeit documents, where they circulated throughout Europe.
Around the same time, the IIS began to manufacture better improvised explosive devices “designed to be used in civilian areas,†and the regime bureaucratized suicide operations, with local Baath Party leaders competing to provide recruits for Saddam as part of a “Martyrdom Project.â€
All of these are inconvenient facts for those who want to assert that somehow Saddam could have been easily contained and presented no threat to the U.S. The Harmony files buttress the case that the decision to oust Saddam was the right one — which makes it all the more puzzling that the Bush Administration is mum. It isn’t the first time the White House has ceded the Iraq debate to its opponents.
See all of today’s editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal1.
And add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum2.
jonathan
September 15th, 2008 at 6:16 am
Saddam Hussein is paying $25,000 to the relatives of Palestinian suicide bombers — a $15,000 raise much welcomed by the bombers’ families.
In Tulkarm, one of the poorest towns on the West Bank, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council handed out the checks from Saddam. The payments have been made for at least two years, but the amount has suddenly jumped up by $15,000 — a bonus for the families of martyrs, to reward those taking part in the escalating war against Israel.
Paul McGeough, reporting from the West Bank, was the only foreign correspondent in the hall Monday night when a Palestinian official handed out the checks. McGeough’s story in today’s Sydney Morning Herald describes a very hellish twist on the Academy Awards:
The men at the top table then opened Saddam’s checkbook and, as the names of 47 martyrs were called, family representatives went up to sign for checks written in U.S. d
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48822,00.html
jonathan
September 15th, 2008 at 6:18 am
Posted 6/17/2004 9:59 PM
Advertisement
Today’s Top News Stories
• 1 dead, 2 hurt in Mich. office shooting; police say suspect had worked there – 6:04 PM
• AP Poll: Congress’ approval hits high point – 5:35 PM
• Katrina claims stagger corps – 4:22 PM
• National Guard tapped for Iraq tour – 3:04 PM
• Edwards scared of ‘rabid Republican’ neighbor – 2:00 PM
• Add USATODAY.com RSS feeds Add USATODAY.com RSS feeds
Commission confirms links
By Stephen J. Hadley
A 9/11 commission staff report is being cited to argue that the administration was wrong about there being suspicious ties and contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda. In fact, just the opposite is true. The staff report documents such links.
The staff report concludes that:
• Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden “explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan.”
• “A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994.”
• “Contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan.”
Chairman Thomas Kean has confirmed: “There were contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda, a number of them, some of them a little shadowy. They were definitely there.”
Following news stories, Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton said he did not understand the media flap over this issue and that the commission does not disagree with the administration’s assertion that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s government.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-06-17-hadley_x.htm
jonathan
September 15th, 2008 at 6:21 am
Ah “the corporate media”
A conspiracy.
Thank goodness we got the Ron Paul political report.
Idiot
Rowan Berkeley
September 15th, 2008 at 7:13 am
The ‘terror groups’ Saddam supported are largely Palestinian resistance groups. If we allow you to define all Palestinian resistance as ‘terrorist,’ then we might as well just hand over the farm and have done with it.
I love this little string of meaningless names, from an earlier comment by pointed revelations :
“… represented by former Katten Muchin Zavis Rosenman partner and ex-NSC attorney Joseph Myers, now with the International Monetary Fund … “
Kenneth
September 15th, 2008 at 7:59 am
No- the spontaneous outcome of structure. Come on, Jonathan, when are we going to see a reply of substance?
jonathan
September 15th, 2008 at 8:03 am
saddam supported more than that jst palestinian groups ,
and suicide bombers are just resistance?
Apologist
jonathan
September 15th, 2008 at 8:05 am
Saddam Hussein’s son Uday hatched a plot to assassinate the leader of the Iraqi opposition in London in April 2000, according to a new Pentagon study based on documents seized during the Iraq war.
The abortive conspiracy called for an elite recruit in the Fedayeen Saddam paramilitary group to kill Ahmed Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress, who was based in London.
The plot is outlined in Iraqi memos that detail Saddam’s support for a wide network of Middle Eastern terror groups, including Islamists linked to Al-Qaeda. They include a 1993 cooperation deal with Egyptian Islamic Jihad, headed by Ayman al-Zawahiri, who became second-in-command of Al-Qaeda when the two groups merged in 2001.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3602664.ece
Kenneth
September 15th, 2008 at 8:05 am
This “Jonathan” character is pathetic. His polemical tactics consists of a recycling of assorted apocrypha, tu quoques, ad hominems, and desultory data. His construction is an interesting one; if the invasion of Iraq and subsequent destruction of civilian lives can be justified by Saddam’s excesses, then the same can be said of the Soviet Union’s occupation of Eastern Europe following the retreat of fascism, the SVR’s invasion of Democratic Kampuchea, the Vietcong’s atrocities in the face of the American air war, and even al-Qaeda’s attack on the Pentagon. Perhaps he would like to consider the parable of the mote and the plank.
Kenneth
September 15th, 2008 at 8:06 am
Yes, Jonathan, they’re the quite predictable consequence of upwards of sixty years of occupation and racialized brutality. Suicide bombing is a military tactic, and its morality depends upon whom it is directed at.
George Kurian
September 15th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Dear Jonathan,
I am an Indian and a Christian. I am not anti-semitic though though many people on the internet have called me that because of the position I hold. I am not fazed by such abuse because 1)I can’t hold a bigotted position against a community who I only know through three or four good friends and 2) I find those words are used in the West to silence all contradictory arguments.
Saddam Hussain was certainly a brutal dicatator but not the way he is portrayed by the propaganda machine of the West. He did put his own Shia group in most of the powerful positions in Iraq and got rid of his enemie, including his sons-in-law, by murder. However, there are others who have been as brutal as he or more. None of this is an excuse for America to play policeman to the world. Everyone outside the US is convinced that the US is in the Middle East for its oil. Most outsiders do not talk about it as it does not seem to concern them.
Your contention that he was linked to Al Queda is pure fiction. I personally know an Iraqi Physician who secretly wrote poetry against Hussain, because he hated the man. He confirms that the members of Al queda were sworn enemies of Hussain because he ran a pluralistic state and not a theocratic one – like Pakistan or Israel. One of his ministers was a Christian. He attacked Kuwait because Kuwait was digging into his oil supply
The Al queda has arisen out of Arabia because Osama believed that America and the Saud Family ( who have made Arabia their family property by calling it Saudi Arabia) together were siphoning off the oil wealth of Arabia. He gave America advance warning that he would use attack America unless the Us got out of its “sacred lands”. I do not think that his crime of sending suicide bombers to destroy the twin towers is any more evil or sinful than attacking civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan and claiming that they were military targets. That was his way of fighting an oppressor with the strongest armed forces in the world. Nor is suicide bombing more sinful or evil than cluster bombs. Starving people in Gaza for voting in Hamas is infinitely more evil.
That brings me to the State of Israel. It is a country that was established illegitimately. It went further and forced the native Arab population out of their Homeland. Like the white regime in South Africa, Golda Meir and many like her claimed they came to unoccupied dessert. Like South Africa it practices apartheid. In fact it is the most evil of all theocratic states, because it practices crimes and is supported by America.
Theocratic states are destined to become failed states. We have them all around us in India – Pakistan,Bangla desh, Sri Lanka (where the official religion is Buddhism) and the former Kingdom of Nepal. Israel is also a failed state though it is very successful materially. It can only redeem itself by transforming itself into a secular nation.
Sincerely.
Rowan Berkeley
September 15th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Phrases like “a wide network of Middle Eastern terror groups, including Islamists linked to Al-Qaeda” are just wastes of newsprint space.
Lear k
September 15th, 2008 at 10:37 am
The war is more about Israel than oil.
Lear k
September 15th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Fifth column are all those who oppose the US actions in the world over!
richard vajs
September 15th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Jonathan,
The (stated) reason that Saddam was giving money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers was because Israel was using collective punishment on those families by bulldozing their homes. Even if a family was unaware that one of their members was going to engage in a suicide bombing, their homes were destroyed anyway. The $25,000 was intended to rebuild that home, it was not a “reward for suicide”. But, of course, the Zionists have lied and twisted this to cast the aspersion that the Arabs are so low as to offer their loved ones lives for money. There is something basically unclean about Zionism in that it would foster such views of other human beings.
jonathan
September 15th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
and in 2000 there was Clinton’s peace plan . Israel accepted it , Arafat didn’t.
It has never been just about occupation since Hamas says they aim to destroy Israel.
jonathan
September 15th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
George you leave out lots of facts and distort others
Israels enemies persecute their minorites.
Israel’s enemies sided with the Nazis even helped them carry out the holocaust. That is
War crime by Israels enemies
in 1948 they lauched a war of annihaltion against the Israel where they intended to expel or even kill all the jews in the area even the arab jews. That is a war crime by Israels enemies that they need to address.
israel’s enemies persecuted arab jews. Major reason why there are no jews in Arab lands.
Here is a good reason for Israel now. Cause Bathists , Khomeni followers, and Al Qaedists and anyone who has a similar ideology can not be trusted to govern or protect their minorities.
If you want Israel gone or changed to a secular state get the mideast to accept liberal democracy as their way of life and their culture . Otherwise go jump in a lake .
Saddam didn’t just invade Kuwait because of a border dispute about oil he invaded Kuwait cause he wanted to conquer Kuwait and control gulf oil to blackmail the west into foreign policy changes. He also eventually to go further than Kuwait if not stopped.
“Right Jews always claim anti semitism to stop any criticism or Israel ” That sometimes happens but usually that is not the case. More than that it is it fair to ask questions
about the motives of those who enagage in selective one sided criticism.
Often those who criticize Israel claim all jews cry anti semitism to stop any discussion about the motives of those doing the criticism.
YOU said
“one of this is an excuse for America to play policeman to the world. Everyone outside the US is convinced that the US is in the Middle East for its oil. Most outsiders do not talk about it as it does not seem to concern them.”
No the US is forcing the Al Qaedists, the Bathists and the Khomeni followers to give up their war.
SADDAM SUPPORTED TERROR THAT IS NOT FICTION you moonbat.
when civilians die it is always terrible but the other side targets them the US does not.
And the US fights for a good cause. Stopping Al Qaedists , Bathists and Khoemni followers from getting what they want saved lives. Those lives count too. Not in your book but they do count.
Eugene Costa
September 15th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
I find it extraordinary how much Stephen J. Hadley, despite his different features, dresses and coifs himself and postures and so forth, to look like the elder Bush:
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/00YmeNGe5Ld6O/610x.jpg
Intelligence was much sterner stuff when Angleton mimicked Eliot.
What is Bush Junior’s legacy in trying to exceed his father: two losing wars, another in the making against Iran, a new Cold War with the Russians, the destruction of the Constitution, economic collapse and bankruptcy.
And today the Pakistanis fire on U.S. Helicopters delivering the next needle in the Project for the New American Century.
jonathan
September 15th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
saddam supported terror -> case closed
Eugene Costa
September 15th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Saddam Hussein on Uday: “People do not get to choose their children.”
Kenneth
September 15th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
The “peace plan” parcelled up Palestine into non-contiguous territories that would have been heavily policed by Israel, required Palestine to cease the territorial demands it is entitled to under UN resolution 242, and refused to apply the law of the right of return to refugee Palestinians. It was deliberately crafted to be rejected.
Eugene Costa
September 15th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Luis Posada Carriles is a US-sponsored terrorist, including in his resume well documented incidents not only in regard to Cuba but in Nicaragua as well.
It is heart-warming how dedicated to Constitutional niceties Judge Cardone has demonstrated herself to be in Posada’s recent appearance before her court. May one expect the case record to appear in John Yoo’s law lectures at Berkeley?
It is wondrous how systematic and glorious the self-deceit and hypocrisy have become. Or is it more than that–collective schizophrenia perhaps, or an ideological version of multiple personality disorder?
By all accounts, including detailed and otherwise biased reports by a number of US intelligence agencies, Saddam Hussein comes out smelling relatively like a rose on this score.
Nadine
September 15th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Please provide sources for your claim that Arab/Islamic nations were in any way involved in or in support of the holocaust (I assume you mean Middle Eastern nations when you say “Israel’s enemies”).
When you mention the war against Israel in 1948, do you mean after nearly 700,000 Palestinians had been forced out of their homes and off their land by Jewish settlers and militias beginning in 1947? The occupying British army at the time also did a thorough job documenting the efforts by said settlers to wipe out entire Palestinian villages by poisoning drinking wells, among other crimes.
You seem to be in support of the US attacking, or as Hilary put it -”obliterating”- any nation which may pose a threat to Israel or it’s citizens. Why aren’t Middle Eastern countries entitled to the same outrage when a nation in their midst is occupied and its’ citizens are forced into refugee camps? You talk about the war to expel the Jews – well who did you think they would expel, the Chinese? They would expel the occupier!
And considering Israel’s widely known (even then) ambition to achieve Greater Israel -by capturing the lands of surrounding nations from the Nile to the Euphrates- Arab governments acted in an attempt to protect their territories and citizens from future Israeli land-grabs (so much for that).
Isn’t defense and the security of it’s citizens what Israel cites when dropping cluster bombs on Lebanon, pushing the US into a war in Iraq over imaginary WMDs and the existential threat to Israel, and now threatening Iran with WW3 over imaginary nuclear weapons? (Back in 2002, Ariel Sharon even demanded that the US attack Iran once the Iraq war was over).
Eugene Costa
September 15th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
I have gone through several different and extensive libraries in my life.
At one time I had an original edition of Mussolini’s cathechism on Fascism, for example.
The booklet was designed on the model of Roman Catholic catechisms, in question and answer form, and with the standard line any follower of Italian Fascism was to parrot in relation to this or that question.
I no longer have the volume but it should be easy enough to find a copy.
I have no idea whether learned and polished Neo-Cons like Dr. Michael Ledeen, Ph.D. or Dr. Harvey Kushner, also Ph.D. have ever perused said volume or any like catechism, political or religious.
In fact the whole tradition is fairly ancient. I recall it was Paul Petit who suggested that Eusebius’ Vita Constantini was a biographical pamphlet designed to be handed to orators, whether pagan or Christian, to outline for them what it was acceptable to say or not say in delivering their basilikoi logoi before Constantine.
What interests here about the book is how tempting it is to reconstruct, point by point, what the Neo-Con playbook must look like.
Note now above, for example, the appearance of “conspiracy”, and compare the passage below from a comment of mine in the earlier “Dueling Realities”:
Given any “conspiracy†at all, the obloquy of “conspiracy theory†results in anyone theorizing or investigating whatever it might be, and however factually, as just another “conspiracy theoristâ€, thus paranoid and delusional.
In addition, attaching “movement†to the “theory†suggests a collective delusion rather than the possibility that a number of people have independently and discerningly investigated the available facts and have come to similar conclusions that something central is missing.
Therefore, no conspiracy exists, especially one that involves any element of the US government or of allied states…
That such a catechism exists, whether in one or several versions–and whether strictly Neo-Con and American, or also Likudite and Zionist—can scarcely be doubted.
Indeed, from a few snippets here and there, clearly Sarah Palin is studying from the same or similar book at the moment.
That it is boring and predictable is less important than that its students apparently think it still very effective. That is not to be quickly dismissed, for it does seem to have worked in the past.
The next step is to wonder just how telling it is that “conspiracy”, for example, is regularly applied to just this and that issue, and seldom any others–in this case, to any suspicion that the mainstream media or press is Neo-Con-influenced, as also with suspicions about 9-11 or the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty.
Why these two or three issues in particular, for example, and not many others?
To many all of this will seem obvious, but there may be some worth in careful method.
It would certainly be interesting actually to get one’s hands on the playbook, if it exists in hardcopy or digital form, or if that is not possible, to reverse engineer what it must look like and how it is studied and used, and by whom.
jonathan
September 15th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
The Bathists, the Khomeni followers and the Al Qaedists are all fascist bigots
jonathan
September 15th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
and your alternative media has an agenda and it is not wrong to question their movites.
By the way show that Luis Posada Carriles was sponsered by the US.
by they way in the 1980s the US did to Nicaragua what Nicaragua was doing to other nations.
The Sandanistas started it and the cold war was justified.
The Miami Herald
July 18, 1999
We shipped weapons, Sandinistas say
By GLENN GARVIN
Herald Staff Writer
MANAGUA — When Ronald Reagan and Sandinista leaders slugged it out during
the 1980s over what was going on in Nicaragua, Reagan was right more often
than they liked to admit, the Sandinistas have admitted.
In a series of interviews with The Herald as the 20th anniversary of their July 19,
1979, rise to power approaches, several past and present Sandinista officials
confirmed for the first time that they shipped weapons to Marxist guerrillas in
neighboring El Salvador.
The Sandinistas also said that the Soviet Union agreed to supply them with MiG
jet fighters and even arranged for Nicaraguan pilots to be trained on the planes in
Bulgaria. But the Soviets reneged on the deal, sending the Sandinistas scurrying
to make peace with the contras, the officials said.
“The Sandinista leadership thought they could be Che Guevaras of all Latin
America, from Mexico to Antarctica,” former Sandinista leader Moises Hassan
told The Herald. “The domino theory wasn’t so crazy.”
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/nicaragua/weapons.htm
jonathan
September 15th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
No Saddam did it to mess up peace.
Zionism is stupid but it is better than Bathism , Khomenim and Al Qaedism .
They persecute their minorities worse than Israel.
There would be no occupation if Arafat had accepted Bill Clinton’s peace plan.
Say what you want about Israel , it doesn’t change the fact that Bathists , Khomeni followres and Al Qadists are all fascist bigots who can’t be trusted to govern or protect their minorities.
There is something unclean about Bathism
There is something unclean about Al Qaedaism
There is something unclean about Khomenism.
And their is something unclean and immoral about thier followers and their apologists.
jonathan
September 15th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Here is your proof:
LOOK !
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/muftinazi_muslim_troops_1.jpg
http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gallery/images/2-mufti2_jpg_jpg_jpg.jpg
Israels’ enemies sided with the Nazis
and helped with the holocaust
http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/bakera.htm
In 1948 Israel’s enemies lanched a war to destory Israel and even expel or murder even the Arab jews
That is a fact and it is a war crime.
That is the context of 1948.
Israel’s enemies persecuted the arab jews in revenge for Israel
that is also a fact.
A crime
http://theoccupation.net/images/NYTimes_1948_Jews_in_Arab.jpg
and while Israel has half heartedly tried to make up for some of its crimes its enemies have never done anything of the sort.
And non of Israels critics ever calls Israel’s enemies on their crimes or their rascism.
Israel’s enemies also practice apartheid far worse than Israel does.
but Israels critics have no problem with that.
jonathan
September 15th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide. (Daily Star, Oct. 23, 2002)
Hassan Nasrallah
So let me tell you this if Hizzbollah is not an organizaiton that is out to destroy Israel then Israel actions were unjustified but if Hizbollah is an organization that is out to destroy Israel then Israels actions to destroy the group were justified.
Why ought Israel just wait around for the next attack.
YOU SAID:
“And considering Israel’s widely known (even then) ambition to achieve Greater Israel -by capturing the lands of surrounding nations from the Nile to the Euphrates- Arab governments acted in an attempt to protect their territories and citizens from future Israeli land-grabs (so much for that). ”
That is Israels goal?
prove it.
jonathan
September 15th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
saddam apologist.
jonathan
September 15th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
http://www.bankingonbaghdad.com/download/jpgs/Mufti%20Cover.jpg
jonathan
September 15th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
No that is not what Bill Clinton said
Hey stupid you are mixing up Camp David summer of 2000 with Bill Clintons
Peace plan of 2000
You don’t no what you are talking about.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,50830,00.html
Eugene Costa
September 15th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Haha:
(n+1) everyone does it
(n+2) they started it
(n+3) a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist except when he is not a terrorist
One is getting the bead on grade level–almost out of elementary school. The deceit, rationalization, and hypocrisy are more sophisticated, probably parental, religious, cultural or any mix thereof. If not unconcsious, it must have taken years of study and work.
An interesting specimen, indeed. The sheer indefatigability of the stupidity suggests a frightened, desperate child, as Uri Avnery evinced in one interesting essay on Olmert.
jonathan
September 15th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
I might be a Pathetic but you are an apologist for Saddam
and you are a disinformation artist as well.
jonathan
September 15th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Lives saved cause of US actions count. Not in your book but they still count.
jonathan
September 15th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
This site isn’t anti war. It supports the wars of anyone who is against the US or Israel.
Anti war is a brown shirt site
jonathan
September 15th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Tell you what get the Bathists , the Khomeni followers and the Al Qaedists to give up their war.
Garteth Porter Khmer Rouge apologist.
jonathan
September 15th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Khomeini fatwa ‘led to killing of 30,000 in Iran’
By Christina Lamb, Diplomatic Correspondent
Last Updated: 3:55PM BST 19 Jun 2001
CHILDREN as young as 13 were hanged from cranes, six at a time, in a barbaric two-month purge of Iran’s prisons on the direct orders of Ayatollah Khomeini, according to a new book by his former deputy.
More than 30,000 political prisoners were executed in the 1988 massacre – a far larger number than previously suspected. Secret documents smuggled out of Iran reveal that, because of the large numbers of necks to be broken, prisoners were loaded onto forklift trucks in groups of six and hanged from cranes in half-hourly intervals.
Gruesome details are contained in the memoirs of Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri, The Memoirs of Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, one of the founders of the Islamic regime. He was once considered Khomeini’s anointed successor, but was deposed for his outspokenness, and is now under house arrest in the holy city of Qom.
Published privately last month after attempts by the regime to suppress it, the revelations have prompted demands from Iranian exiles for those involved to be tried for crimes against humanity. The most damning of the letters and documents published in the book is Khomeini’s fatwa decree calling for all Mojahedin (as opponents of the Iranian regime are known) to be killed.
Issued shortly after the end of the Iran-Iraq war in July 1988 and an incursion into western Iran by the Iranian resistance, the fatwa reads: “It is decreed that those who are in prisons throughout the country and remain steadfast in their support for the Monafeqin (Mojahedin) are waging war on God and are condemned to execution.”
It goes on to entrust the decision to “death committees” – three-member panels consisting of an Islamic judge, a representative of the Ministry of Intelligence, and a state prosecutor. Prisoners were to be asked if they had changed loyalties and, if not, were to be executed.
Montazeri, who states that 3,800 people had been killed by the end of the first fortnight of executions, includes his own correspondence with Khomeini, saying that the killings would be seen as “a vendetta” and would spark opposition to the regime. He wrote: “The execution of several thousand prisoners in a few days will not have positive repercussions and will not be mistake-free.”
The massacres, which came just before the Lockerbie bombing, were seen as a sop to the hardliners at a time when Khomeini was already in failing health and the battle for succession had begun between fundamentalists and moderates. He died the following year.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/1321090/Khomeini-fatwa-'led-to-killing-of-30,000-in-Iran'.html
Eugene Costa
September 15th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
“Nevertheless, like a monkey over a cupcake, PBS’s Judy Woodruff, who was moderating the Sunday morning moderators for the afternoon event, pounced on Rendell….”
Dr. Harvey Kushner, Ph.D.
A “monkey over a cupcake”? Don’t think I have run into that before. Interesting use of “over”. Byronic? No. Not African. New York City perhaps? And the organ grinder was….
Eugene Costa
September 15th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Along with the play by play narrative of the PR war against Iraq, the book traces the history of PR’s role in the U.S.’s involvement in the Middle East from before the Gulf War. Among other things Rampton and Stauber describe the infamous concocted story about Iraqis yanking hundreds of Kuwaiti babies out of incubators and leaving them on the floor to die. This testimony, given by a teenage girl who turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the U.S., was proven completely false after being feverishly reported by everyone from mainstream media to human rights groups.
As it turned out, there weren’t even enough incubators in Kuwait to make the story feasible. But more chilling than the release of the story itself is the way, a decade later, the fact that the government and PR agencies cooked up the story has faded from public consciousness while the actual story itself has not….”
Reivew of Stauber and Rampton, Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush’s War on Iraq
[http://bad.eserver.org/reviews/2003/2003-8-13-11.24PM.html]
Which leads to the intriguing question, is the anti-Iranian propaganda machine still ad hoc and free lance, or have some of the same Public Relations operatives involved in Clinton’s War against Yugoslavia and the elder Bush’s war against Iraq got into the act?
Too, having clumsily and to their own disadvantage got rid of Hussein, are the Saudis and the Kuwaitis footing some of the costs, under the divan, so to speak?
I have indeed seen hints here and there of the Israelis now trying to present themselves as the potential saviors of the Arabs (read ruling Arab elites) against the Iranians.
Eugene Costa
September 15th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
I was shocked on Thursday morning when I dropped my son off for football camp and got chatting to one of the other mothers. On hearing that I had just been in Afghanistan, she asked why we have troops there and suggested they should leave, as they are doing from Iraq.
“But Afghanistan and Iraq are completely different,†I protested. “Afghanistan was a UNbacked intervention. We have reasons to be there. The people want us.â€
Christina Lamb
Ms. Lamb, somewhat at odds with her surname, doesn’t seem to have run into many wars she doesn’t like.
Nadine
September 15th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
I genuinely wonder why that picture has not been shoved down our throats by the media. You are aware that Bush’s grandfather helped finance Nazi ambitions, are you not? Does that make the American government or the American people Nazis or Nazi sympathizers? But if only you would apply your own argument to this:
“http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg”>
As for proving my comment about Greater Israel, just today it is being reported that Olmert has announced that goal of Greater Israel should be forgotten, meaning up until now it has been on the agenda. If you are not aware of the concept of Greater Israel, then you are deeply misinformed or just outright lying.
http://www.zionism-israel.com/dic/Eretz_Yisrael_Hashleima.htm
And for illustrative purposes:
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/media/Irgun2_60_2.JPG
And you continue to rant idiotically about how the poor little occupiers were bullied by the mean Arabs and were going to be expelled, but you refuse to acknowledge the atrocities committed by the founders of Israel and the terrorist groups which destroyed Palestinian lives which RESULTED in the attack on Israel by surrounding Arab nations.
How has Israel attempted to make up for it’s crimes? Has it returned stolen land? Has it offered reparations to now homeless families or survivors? Has it in any way, shape or form made life less unbearable under it’s racist, apartheid rule? No. It has annexed MORE land, built MORE settlements, continued expanding the wall and destroyed homes in it’s path, they have increased checkpoints, they have condemned 1.5 million human beings in Gaza to starvation. Israel has committed every possible crime and whether you like it or not Israel started this war.
As for your quoting Hezbollah’s Nasrallah, I suggest you read just about anything by the beloved Meir Kahane.
Nadine
September 15th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Wow, upon further review the evidence you have provided is incredible. Aside from the pictures, the claims of the Mufti’s responsibility for the deaths of countless people based on that letter is a stretch; but I honestly don’t know how influential the mufti of Jerusalem is.
And that catastrophic testimony? Well, it’s preceded by this disclaimer:
“We have not seen the original document; however the Website which posted it has proven accurate in the past.”
Kenneth
September 15th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
The issue here is the peace plan, and Arafat’s reasons for refusing it. The location at which it was discussed is entirely immaterial.
Kenneth
September 15th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Sorry, idiot, I’ve never attempted to apologize for Saddam, or any mass murderer, which can’t be said of you.
Mike P
September 15th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Well, I have not read this entire thread, just skimmed it. But why has no one pointed out the fundamental fallacy of Johnathan’s argument? I can grant him all his points about Saddam being a fascist, Khomeini being evil, Arab dictatorships being anti-semitic and repressive. But why would this lead me to support the US government and its wars? Or the state of Israel? This is not an either/or situation. I think all of these people are savage killers.
Another good question for Johnathan would be if he supports the practice of “renditioning” people to Syria, one of Israel’s evil enemies known for torture?
Rowan Berkeley
September 16th, 2008 at 12:12 am
‘apologist’ seems to be a sort of magic word for him. I wonder why.
jonathan
September 16th, 2008 at 1:46 am
Ah if its an article against – Iran it must be propaganda.
Moonbat
Sure the Kuwaiti incubator story was bogus , but Saddam did gas the Kurds and that was far worse.
jonathan
September 16th, 2008 at 1:53 am
The US and Israel whatever their flaws behave better than their enemies.
renditioning -> only in special cases.
Like when the US gets ahold of an Al Qaeda king pin.
it was the opinion of the Clinton administration that Osama Bin Laden could not be convicted in a US court so he was allowed to go to Afghanistan.
Actually according to Sandy Burger the US wanted him sent to Saudi where they would have just killed him .
The US was wrong to let him go.
When the US gets its way you get South Korea
when the US doesn’t get its way you get North Korea.
It is wrong to steal a countires oil it is not wrong to force Bathists, Khomeni followers and Al Qaeists to give up their war.
jonathan
September 16th, 2008 at 1:55 am
1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from 1988 Massacre of Iranian Prisoners)
Jump to: navigation, search
17th anniversary of the executions at Khavaran cemetery, one of the burial places used for the mass graves.1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners (Persian: Û±Û³Û¶Û· اعدام زندانیان سیاسی در تابستان) refers to the systematic execution of thousands of political prisoners across Iran by the government of Iran, starting on 19 July 1988 and lasting about five months. The main targets were the members of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI), although a lesser number of political prisoners from other leftist groups were also included such as the Tudeh Party of Iran (Communist Party).[1][2]
The killings have been called “an act of violence unprecedented in Iranian history – unprecedented in form, content, and intensity.”[3] Estimates of the number executed vary from 8000[4] to 30,000.[5][6]
Great care was taken to keep the killings secret, and the government of Iran denies their having taken place, but with the large scale of the operation word leaked out from survivors. Explanations offered for why the prisoners were killed vary. Perhaps the most common is that it was in retaliation for the 1988 attack on the western borders of Iran by the PMOI, although this happened after the executions had begun and does not explain the executions of members of other leftists groups who opposed the Mojahedin invasion. [7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Massacre_of_Iranian_Prisoners
Eugene Costa is an apologist for the Iranian government.
jonathan
September 16th, 2008 at 1:57 am
it is in your case . Any news against Iran is propagnda.
Apologist.
jonathan
September 16th, 2008 at 1:59 am
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=160
Memories of a slaughter in Iran
Sunday, 05 September 2004
TORONTO STAR
Here is another source
Going to apologize for the Khomeni followers again?
Rune
September 16th, 2008 at 3:09 am
A star is born indeed! Crystal clear Scott.
One note; WMD is irrelevant and beside the point.
I listen to your show every day.Thanks.
swans
September 16th, 2008 at 3:23 am
Most certainly true, Tom. Thanks.
warren
September 16th, 2008 at 3:48 am
Saddam is dead. Now can we please move on and mind our own business by bringing our troops home?
warren
September 16th, 2008 at 3:57 am
Saddam is dead. Please just give up and go somewhere else your rants are not swaying anyone here.
o'raiffertiagh
September 16th, 2008 at 4:50 am
Scott Horton could have and should have accused the US goverment of being a major terrorist organization and the fact the Kushner as been a supporter oand avisor to various REpublican adminstrations makes Kushner a terrorist.
Rowan Berkeley
September 16th, 2008 at 5:02 am
Even if it were the case that the sum total of human suffering is less when the USA sends its mercenary thugs to subject a country to fascism than when the country proceeds on its own towards some form of socialism, it wouldn’t follow that the USA had some sort of moral right or duty to intervene.
Tom
September 16th, 2008 at 5:31 am
Scott: I’ve been a fan of yours for some time. First time I have seen you on video.
Great job.
jonathan
September 16th, 2008 at 5:48 am
depends if a there’s is a war being waged against the US
jonathan
September 16th, 2008 at 5:49 am
when you give a reply of substance.
Rowan Berkeley
September 16th, 2008 at 6:50 am
totally ecstatic adulation of mighty Scott Horton debating victory from David R Henderson, here (well it’s a friendly venue to post it):
http://www.antiwar.com/henderson/?articleid=13462
Eugene Costa
September 16th, 2008 at 7:33 am
Horton was impressive near the end of the “debate”, and Dr. Harvey Kushner, Ph.D. looked like Santa Ana caught with his pants down.
For all that Henderson’s “adulation” is misplaced and his article is full of errors. Rhetoric is not, for example, the “art of argumentation”. Quite the contrary–it is more, in modern terms, the “art” of “presentation”. In advertising and public relations, that is understood, and that is exactly why “rhetoric”, along with “debating” is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
In fact Horton’s weakest point, that Henderson considers so impressive, is the suggestion to send the works of Locke to “backward countries” without a “democratic” tradition.
Here Horton demonstrates himself to be as ethnocentric as Dr. Kushner, Ph.D.
Locke is, in any case, save to Anglophiliacs, mostly a waste of time and worthless save for the errors he makes logically and philosophically. The suggestion smacks of Burroughs having his Dr. Benway drop copies of Naked Lunch on Nigeria–was it?–save seemingly made seriously and without the devilish comedy.
Eugene Costa
September 16th, 2008 at 7:43 am
Neo-Cons and Zionists as putative Benthamites? Certainly it seems to be a prominent element in their argumentation, but surely no more genuinely held than any other Straussianism.
Rowan Berkeley
September 16th, 2008 at 7:52 am
Locke’s “Reasonableness of Christianity” is one of the most cynical books I know. But Lockeanism has become a sort of pigeon-hole for classical liberalism, which is in fact a conservatism by today’s standards, and wants to be recognised as such (I mean, it defends a property-owning minority, for a start).
Scott has a remarkable ability to combine spontaneity with accuracy. I notice that in a lot of his interviews, though I don’t listen to all.
Eugene Costa
September 16th, 2008 at 7:57 am
Exactly, the very use of the word “Terror” by various groups, including many Democrats, in the US must to be deconstructed.
It seems that many Libertarians, and Paulists especially, are bit gun shy about facing well documented facts about the behavior of the US in the world for most of last century.
There is no reasonable and objective definition by which Saddam Hussein was a “terrorist”, for example, but the US easily qualifies, even by its own definitions, not only in Latin America but in Iran itself, or the Philippines, and in many other places around the world.
Eugene Costa
September 16th, 2008 at 8:00 am
“But Lockeanism has become a sort of pigeon-hole for classical liberalism”
Nicely put.
hjmaiere
September 16th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Eugene Costa: “For all that Henderson’s ‘adulation’ is misplaced and his article is full of errors. Rhetoric is not, for example, the ‘art of argumentation’. Quite the contrary–it is more, in modern terms, the ‘art’ of ‘presentation’.”
That’s like saying ‘inflation’ is defined as rising prices. Yes, this is the way people have come to use the term, but only as the result of decades of disingenuous persuasion and argument by obfuscation on behalf of institutionalized power by self-imagined intellectual elites…like Dr. Kushner.
Eugene Costa: “In fact Horton’s weakest point, that Henderson considers so impressive, is the suggestion to send the works of Locke to ‘backward countries’ without a ‘democratic’ tradition.
“Here Horton demonstrates himself to be as ethnocentric as Dr. Kushner, Ph.D.”
I think you’re getting your rhetoric mixed up. I don’t think Scott ever said anything about ‘backward countries’ without a ‘democratic’ tradition.
If there is any genuinely principled universal argument against war as such, it lies in the liberal tradition (in the classic sense)–in the attempt to stipulate mutually-binding rules of conduct, as it were. Imposing ideology at gunpoint is indeed ‘ethnocentric,’ but peacefully sharing good ideas that just happen through an accident of history to come out of the west is not ‘ethnocentric.’ Quite the opposite.
I think it was one of the most constructive things Scott said. And it’s curious that ‘liberal’ is yet another one of those terms hijacked through argument by obfuscation, and whose perversion could have been avoided if only more people read for themselves things like Locke’s “Second Treatise on Government.”
Eugene Costa
September 16th, 2008 at 9:14 am
It was not an exact quotation of Horton-and Horton was replying to Kushner’s aim to “democratize” the world.
As for the rest, you are welcome to your definition of “rhetoric”, “argumentation”, and so forth, and to all the absurd claims you make for Locke and British “liberals”.
The British liberals, in fact, were in some ways very similar to the Neo-Cons, not in ideology, but in the way they infiltrated themselves into the body politic and destroyed it from within.
The quite deserved reputation of British food as the essence of unpalatability is a legacy of enclosure.
The situation was a bit different in the American colonies, where the French Englightenment was much more important than Locke.
None of this is new by the way–how the “liberals” destroyed Britain is very similar to how the money men put the squeeze on ancient Athens, to which squeeze Solon was a response, and a fairly successful one at that.
jonathan
September 16th, 2008 at 9:28 am
the US actually disarmed the anti Iranian groups in Iraq .
That is real support of terror???
jonathan
September 16th, 2008 at 9:29 am
July 13, 1991
Japanese Translator of Rushdie Book Found Slain
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
OKYO, July 12 — The Japanese translator of “The Satanic Verses,” by Salman Rushdie, was found slain today at a university northeast of Tokyo.
The translator, Hitoshi Igarashi, 44 years old, was an assistant professor of comparative culture who reportedly studied in Iran in the 1970′s. The police said he was stabbed several times on Thursday night and left in the hallway outside his office at Tsukuba University.
It is the second time this month that someone involved with the production of the novel by Mr. Rushdie, the Indian-born author condemned to death by the Iranian authorities two years ago, has been assaulted. On July 3, Ettore Capriolo, 61, the Italian translator of “The Satanic Verses,” was stabbed in his apartment in Milan. He survived the attack with what were described as superficial wounds.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/99/04/18/specials/rushdie-translator.html
Who done it??
jonathan
September 16th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Scott Horton doesn’t know his stuff.
jonathan
September 16th, 2008 at 9:48 am
No Kangaroo court for you.
Eugene Costa
September 16th, 2008 at 9:48 am
The Japanese translator of “The Satanic Verses” was just killed–nuke Iran!
jonathan
September 16th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Stopping Al Qaeda , the Khomeni followers and the Bathist is justice.
There is no moral equivlent between what the US is fighting for and for what they fight for.
You creepy ignorant moonbat.
hjmaiere
September 16th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Eugene Costa: “The British liberals, in fact, were in some ways very similar to the Neo-Cons, not in ideology, but in the way they infiltrated themselves into the body politic and destroyed it from within.”
I have no clue what you’re talking about. Can you provide further sources, or at least speak in less sweeping generalities?
jonathan
September 16th, 2008 at 9:58 am
No your reporting on it is not accurate
Are you ignorant or dishonest or both you slime?
Eugene Costa
September 16th, 2008 at 10:02 am
I have no clue what you’re talking about. Can you provide further sources, or at least speak in less sweeping generalities?
Why in the world should I do that? Are you asking to be educated gratis?
Anyone who knows enclosure in detail knows exactly what I am referring to.
jonathan
September 16th, 2008 at 10:08 am
So it all a conspiracy the pictures are all photo shopped?
The fact is that in 1948 Israels enemies launched a war to expel or kill all the jews or the area.
War crime.
Israel’s enemies sided with the Nazis. and helped them with the holocaust.
Israels enemies have commited every possible crime.
and you are an apologist for it.
Greater Israel meant the West Bank and Gaza not the entire mideast. You neo nazi bitch.
Meir Khannah even he was wasn’t for attacking Arabs in foreign countries. Or wiping out every arab country on the map. But that is what Nassaralh is about.
Israel might be rascist they might practice apartied but Israels enemies are more racist and they practice apartheid worse than Israel.
Those are the facts.
And while Israel has made half hearted peace attempts the same can not be said of its enemies.
Nadine your business is selective criticism and misinformation.
Nadine you are worthless
jonathan
September 16th, 2008 at 10:11 am
So this father of the Palestinian movement was not merely a Nazi collaborator; he was not merely a full-fledged Nazi; he was one of the arch criminals of the Holocaust. And today he is venerated by every Palestinian faction.
Here is the quote from Nation publisher Victor Navasky, who mixes some truth and some whitewashing of a Nazi leader, perhaps because said leader was a Palestinian Arab:
“The Nation Associates supported the magazine [i.e., The Nation] through fundraising but also ran conferences and conducted research. (For example, it commissioned twelve studies on the Middle East, some documenting collaboration between the Nazis and the Mufti of Jerusalem.)
http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/villard_bio.html
http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/bakera.htm
jonathan
September 16th, 2008 at 10:18 am
fact is that in 1948 Israels enemies launched a war to expel all the jews of the area even the arab jews.
war crime
Fact is that Israels enemies sided with the Nazis and helped them carry out the holocaust.
War crime
Israels enemies are racist than Israel and they practice apartheid .
Greater Israel was the West Bank and Gaza not all of the middle east.
Meir Kahane wasn’t out to wipe out every arab state.
Nadine you are a disinformation artist, a misinformation artist and you are also a bigot.
jonathan
September 16th, 2008 at 10:20 am
No you are ignorant and you have no argument, you loser.
jonathan
September 16th, 2008 at 10:22 am
No but it does tell us a little about Iran.
Iran ought to give up its war. Maybe you think everyone ought to just accept what Iran does.
Then again you are an appeaser.
Rodrigo
September 16th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Jonathan: “Iran ought to give up its war.”
What war are you talking about?
Rodrigo
September 16th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Jonathan, are you an Israeli?
hjmaiere
September 16th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Eugene Costa: “Why in the world should I do that? Are you asking to be educated gratis?”
Then what exactly is it you hope to gain with your voluminous posts to the comment section? And if by “enclosure” you are referring to what was in effect the privileged classes forcing people off their farmland, what possible relationship does this have to do with (classical) liberalism? (That is, beyond the desperate (and ultimately successful) attempts by progressives to misrepresent it.)
If you wish to claim that the rule you wish institutionalized is not merely the dictates of authority or the whim of the privileged classes, the very first thing you need to stipulate is that this rule is mutually binding–that the rules are not different for different people. This is the core of classical liberalism.
It’s also a frontal assault on the privileges of the self-appointed ruling elite. In response they employ the intellectuals (at the time, called progressives) to obfuscate the issue. Their job was/is to come up with any and every excuse they can for the accumulation and institutionalization of political authority. The excuses are irrelevant. The institutionalized authority is all that matters, because it will always tend to fall under the control of the genuine plutocracy.
Check out “Capitalism and the Historians” edited by F.A. Hayek.
Eugene Costa
September 16th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Ah–a reading list.
Thanks so much. Hayek you say? How do you spell that, H-A-Y-E-K?
At any rate, you do betray complete ignorance of enclosure. It was not a case of “privileged people”, as you put it, taking up arms and “forcing people off their farmland”, was it now?
If it were that, there would be no analogue with the Neo-Cons.
Carry on. I am not interested in your stipulations or your bibliography or your absurd definition of the “core of classical liberalism”.
richard vajs
September 16th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Jonathan,
I think you are getting feverish over nothing. Salmon Rushdie wrote “The Satanic Verses” back in the 1980s. The Ayatollah Khomeni issued a fatwa against him back then; Ruhollah has gone on to his heavenly reward long ago. Over the years, Mr. Rushdie has come out of hiding – I saw him on Bill Mahr’s show a week ago or so. Even he admits that it is more “a piece of rhethoric than a real threat”. Actually the “fatwa” has been good for his career, he probably wishes Iran would not let it lapse so. Mr. Rushdie is probably in more danger from pissed off ex-wives seeking financial compensation than from the mullahs.
hjmaiere
September 16th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Eugene Costa: “At any rate, you do betray complete ignorance of enclosure. It was not a case of ‘privileged people’, as you put it, taking up arms and ‘forcing people off their farmland’, was it now?”
You tell me. It seems to refer to a lot of things. I’m only trying to guess what you might possibly mean by it. But then, defining your terms only weakens your ability to argue by authority.
hjmaiere
September 16th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would be unlawful for them to do themselves. — John Locke, “A Treatise Concerning Civil Government”
Eugene Costa
September 16th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Sorry to disappoint–not interested in argument, debate, or educating you in areas where you are obviously ignorant.
hjmaiere
September 16th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
“Sorry to disappoint–not interested in argument, debate, or educating you in areas where you are obviously ignorant.”
Brilliant rhetorical device, BTW.
Do I have to regurgitate the Marxist analysis of enclosure from Wikipedia? The rich landowners used their privileged status to dislocate farmers and create surplus labor for the factories.
Here’s my problem: It’s true. But it has *zero* to do with classical liberalism, at least as defined by Locke among others. To the contrary, classical liberalism was a *threat* to what progressive historians with deliberate intent to deceive refer to as ‘capitalism,’ but which more accurately is described as ‘mercantilism’ or now days ‘fascism,’ i.e. a corporate-government alliance in every corner of the economy.
The Neo-Cons are not the plutocracy. They, like the progressives before them, are merely in its employ.
eep
September 16th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
It was a good debate Mr. Horton! You used facts and the other guy had none. He supposed to be a knowledgeable professor yet he is all arrogance with no critical thinking. He like everyone else in the War Party is suffering from delusional utopian arrogant imperial disorder and is full of hot air. The sad thing is I expected as much from him.
Kenneth
September 16th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
In what way is it not accurate? Surely you’re familiar with the concept of a supporting argument?
Kenneth
September 16th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Merely attacking something bad does not confer a moral blank check, and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein does not justify the murder of over a million Iraqis, the forcible imposition of a federalist system, and support for sectarian death squads.
Eugene Costa
September 16th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Acutally, it is the essence of anti-rhetorical, but how to explain that to a rhetor and an ignoramus. Keep talking, my dear fellow, you may discredit Locke and Paul and muddle-headed “Conservative” political philosophy forever.
And that would be a very useful and advantageous thing.
Kenneth
September 16th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
I’ve given such replies. You’ve yet to provide anything beyond naked assertions.
hjmaiere
September 16th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Eugene Costa: “Keep talking, my dear fellow, you may discredit Locke and Paul and muddle-headed ‘Conservative’ political philosophy forever. … And that would be a very useful and advantageous thing.”
So I did hit the nail on the head! Thanks for confirming…
Eugene Costa
September 16th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
A bit like the otherwise actively unmemorable film, “Baby Doll”, which the Legion of Decency put on its banned list, making it a box office sensation?
Being a wee one at the time, I have no idea what this was all about, and never saw the movie until much later, and then could watch only fifteen minutes of it before throwing in the towel it was so bad.
So I still have no idea what it was about. A nightie?
I have also never seen “The Rose Tattoo”.
Am I missing something?
I do recall vaguely, after Quevedo or whoever it was, stealing a “free read” of “The Satanic Verses” in a book store years go.
Struck me as quite boring, and I did not buy the book. A bit like Baby Doll nighties perhaps, but who knows–perhaps it was the translation.
Japanese men, after all, find the back of a woman’s neck irresistibly erotic.
Is Rushdie himself under suspicion by the way? As an ancient Roman once put it, “Cui bono?”
hjmaiere
September 16th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
I can’t resist one more quote:
“We are living today in a highly organized state of socialism. The state is all; the individual is of importance only as he contributes to the welfare of the state. His property is his only as the state does not need it. He must hold his life and possessions at the call of the state.” ― Bernard Baruch, stock speculator, and chairman of War Industries Board under Woodrow Wilson, August 7, 1918
Eugene Costa
September 16th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Q: Quare splene ridemus?
A: Quoniam ipse mundificat sanquinem a melancholica superfluitate cuius inducere tristitiam. Inde ergo nascitur contrarium, scilicet iocunditas.
Go back to your catechism, little fella.
Eugene Costa
September 16th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Bernard Baruch? A barrel of monkeys on a cupcake, hehe.
jonathan
September 16th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
No I am not Israeli.
I guess anyone who disagrees with you is an Israeli or zionist
I bet you are are a disinforamtion artist.
jonathan
September 16th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran
Quote:
Senior U.S. officials have told TIME that the 9/11 Commission’s report will cite evidence suggesting that the 9/11 hijackers had previously passed through Iran
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,664967,00.html
Quote:
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Iran’s Timeline of Terror
I followed the link at the end of the article to his essay published September 11, 2007 at The Claremont Institute.
“Iran’s Proxy War Against America, (PDF)” covers the evidence of Iranian links to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups regardless of their Sunni, Shiite or Palestinian sympathies. ……
November 4, 1979
Fifty-two American citizens are taken hostage by “students†loyal to Ayatollah Khomeini. They are held for more than a year, until January 20, 1981. The kidnappings are part of the Iranian revolution, which serves as a model for Sunni terrorist groups like Ayman al-Zawahiri’s Egyptian Islamic Jihad.
April 18, 1983
Iran’s master terrorist, Imad Mugniyah, orchestrates the first significant Islamist suicide attack against America: the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. Establishing a modus operandi for terrorists in the years to come, the attacker utilizes a van packed with explosives.
October 23, 1983
Using massive truck bombs, Hezbollah’s suicide bombers simultaneously attack the U.S. Marine Barracks and a housing complex for French Paratroopers in Beirut, Lebanon. Al-Qaeda would later adopt simultaneous suicide bombings as its preferred method for committing attacks.
December 12, 1983
Iranian-backed terrorists bomb the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait. A close relative of Imad Mugniyah is convicted by a Kuwaiti court and sentenced to death for his role in the bombing. Other attackers,
also supported by Iran, are imprisoned. The terrorists come to be known as the “Kuwait 17†or “Dawa 17.†75 iran’s proxy war against america
March 16, 1984
William Buckley, the CIA’s station chief in Beirut, is kidnapped and later tortured-to-death by Imad Mugniyah’s Hezbollah. Buckley’s kidnapping is one in a series of Hezbollah’s kidnappings from the early 1980s through the early 1990s. Dozens of Americans are kidnapped and Hezbollah frequently demands an exchange for the Kuwait 17. Hezbollah’s kidnappings lead to the biggest scandal of President Ronald Reagan’s tenure, the Iran-Contra affair, after the Reagan administration agrees to exchange arms for the hostages.
September 20, 1984
Hezbollah terrorists strike the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut with a truck bomb.
December 3, 1984
Mugniyah’s operatives hijack Kuwait Airways Flight 221. The hijackers attempt to barter for the release of the Kuwait 17.
June 14, 1985
Mugniyah’s terrorists hijack TWA Flight 847. Once again, the hijackers attempt to barter for the release of the Kuwait 17. When the hijackers’ demands are denied, they beat and kill a U.S. Navy serviceman, Robert Dean Stethem, who happened to be on the flight. Incredibly, Germany granted parole to one of the hijackers in December 2005.
1990
According to Ali Mohamed, a top al-Qaeda operative in U.S. custody, Ayman al-Zawahiri’s Egyptian Islamic Jihad partners with Iran in a planned coup attempt in Egypt. Tehran trains EIJ terrorists for the coup attempt, which is ultimately aborted. Iran also pays al-Zawahiri $2 million for sensitive information concerning 76 national security studies the Egyptian Government’s plans to raid several islands in the Persian Gulf.
1991
Iran and Sudan, then the world’s only Islamist states, forge a strategic alliance. They begin to jointly export terrorism throughout the world.
April 1991
Hassan al-Turabi hosts the first Popular Arab Islamic Conference in Sudan. The conference provides a forum for disparate forces in the Middle East who oppose American presence in the region to come together. Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Iraqi and Iranian representatives all attend the meeting.
February 26, 1993
Terrorists connected to al-Qaeda and the global terror network bomb the World Trade Center using a rental truck packed with explosives. The bombers’ colleagues plot a follow-on attack against landmarks in the NYC area. There is no known evidence that Iran had a hand in these events. It is clear, however, that several of the plotters had ties to Hassan al-Turabi’s Sudan. Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, the spiritual leader of the two leading Egyptian terrorist groups (both of which will join al- Qaeda) and who was living in the New York metropolitan area, is later convicted for his involvement in the attacks. Reports surface that he and his organization received financial assistance from Iran.
1993
According to Ali Mohamed, Imad Mugniyah and Osama bin Laden meet in Sudan. Bin Laden expresses his desire to model al- Qaeda after Hezbollah. In particular, bin Laden expresses interest in Mugniyah’s bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in 1983 77 iran’s proxy war against america and similar attacks. They agree to work together against America and the West.
1993
According to Jamal al-Fadl, an al-Qaeda operative in U.S. custody, bin Laden meets a leading Iranian sheikh in Sudan. The purpose of the meeting is to put aside any differences between their competing brands of Islam in order to come together against their common enemy: the West. The meeting is just the first of several between bin Laden and Iran’s spiritual leaders.
1993
Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps train al- Qaeda’s terrorists in camps in Sudan, Lebanon and Iran. Among the terrorists trained are some of bin Laden’s most trusted lieutenants and al-Qaeda’s future leaders.
1993
Egypt and Algeria cut off diplomatic ties with Iran. Both nations accuse Iran and Sudan of supporting Sunni terrorism, including terrorist groups affiliated with al-Qaeda. Egypt will blame Iran for supporting both the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Group throughout the 1990’s.
November 13, 1995
Two bombs are detonated, nearly simultaneously, at the Saudi National Guard training facility in Riyadh, killing five Americans. The suspects are captured and confess to being inspired by Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden denies responsibility, but praises the attack. It is likely al-Qaeda’s first terrorist attack inside the Saudi Kingdom. 78 national security studies
November 19, 1995
An al-Qaeda suicide bomber destroys the Egyptian Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan. The CIA’s Bob Baer later learns that Mugniyah’s deputy assisted al-Qaeda in the attack and that one of bin Laden’s top terrorists remained in contact with Mugniyah’s offi ce months afterwards.
May 1996
Bin Laden is expelled from Sudan, but the 9/11 Commission reports that “intelligence indicates the persistance of contacts†between al-Qaeda and Iran even after al-Qaeda’s relocation to Afghanistan. Bin Laden and al-Qaeda maintain an ongoing presence in Sudan, despite not being “formally†welcome.
June 21 – 23, 1996
Tehran hosts a summit for the leading Sunni and Shiite terrorist groups. It is announced that the terrorists will continue to focus on U.S. interests thoughout the region. Mugniyah, bin Laden, and a leading member of the EIJ reportedly forge the “Committee of Three,†under the leadership of Iran’s intelligence chief, to focus their joint efforts against American targets.
June 25, 1996
Hezbollah terrorists, operating under the direction of senior Iranian officials, bomb the Khobar Towers apartment complex in Saudi Arabia. Contemporaneous reports by both the State Department and the CIA note that al-Qaeda is also suspected of playing a role. The 9/11 Commission would later find “indirect evidence†of al-Qaeda’s involvement. The evidence includes intelligence indicating that al-Qaeda was planning a similar operation in the months prior and that bin Laden was congratulated by other al-Qaeda operatives, including Ayman al-Zawahiri, shortly after the attack. 79 iran’s proxy war against america
July 1996
According to Bob Baer, the Egyptian Islamic Group—an ally of bin Laden’s al-Qaeda—is in contact with Mugniyah.
1996
According to Bob Baer, there is “incontrovertible evidence†of a meeting between bin Laden and a representative of the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS).
August 7, 1998
Al-Qaeda’s suicide bombers simultaneously destroy the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. It is al-Qaeda’s most spectacular attack prior to 9/11. The attack is clearly modeled on Hezbollah’s attacks in the early 1980s. Indeed, the al-Qaeda terrorists responsible were trained by Hezbollah in the early 1990s. There is evidence that Iran also provided explosives used in the attack.
October – November 2000
Imad Mugniyah and his lieutenants personally escort several of the 9/11 muscle hijackers out of Saudi Arabia on flights to Beirut and Iran. In all, eight to ten of the hijackers travel through Iran on the way to 9/11.
December 2000
Ramzi Binalshibh, al-Qaeda’s key point man for the 9/11 plot, applies for visa at the Iranian Embassy in Berlin. His visa application is approved.
January 31, 2001
Ramzi Binalshibh arrives at Tehran International airport. He does not return to Germany until February 28, 2001. The purpose of his trip to Iran remains a mystery. The 9/11 Commission does not mention Binalshibh’s trip to Iran. 80 national security studies
Early September 2001
Binalshibh flees to Iran shortly before the 9/11 attacks.
September 11, 2001
Nineteen al-Qaeda hijackers execute al-Qaeda’s largest operation to date, killing nearly 3000 Americans. Many of the details surrounding the plot, including who financed the attack, remain a mystery.
October 2001
According to a high-level Taliban detainee at Gitmo, Iran offers the Taliban Government assistance in retreating from Afghanistan.
October 2001
Numerous press reports indicate that Iran aids the retreat of hundreds of al-Qaeda and Taliban members from Afghanistan. Some al-Qaeda operatives enjoy safehaven in Iran to this day. Among them is Said al-Adel, who is reportedly the third highest ranking member of al-Qaeda and was trained by Hezbollah during the early 1990s, and Saad bin Laden, Osama’s heir apparent.
April 11, 2002
Al-Qaeda carries out the first attack ordered by bin Laden since 9/11: a suicide bomber destroys a synagogue in Tunisia, killing nineteen people. According to NBC News, Saad bin Laden contacted the cell responsible for the attack from his safehaven in Iran. Suleiman Abu Ghaith, bin Laden’s spokesman, also claims al-Qaeda’s responsibility for the attack from his abode in Iran.
End of 2002 – Spring 2003
According to former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, senior al-Qaeda leaders discuss the acquisition of nuclear weapons from their safe haven in Iran. In fact, al-Qaeda’s “nuclear 81 iran’s proxy war against america chief,†Abdel al-Aziz al-Masri, is one of many senior terrorists living in Iran.
May 12, 2003
Under orders from Saif al-Adel and Saad bin Laden, who are operating from Iran, al-Qaeda’s terrorists simultaneously strike three separate housing complexes in Riyadh Saudi Arabia. Another al- Qaeda agent thought to be responsible for the attack flees to Iran before he can be captured.
May 16, 2003
One dozen al-Qaeda bombers attack several targets in Casablanca, Morocco. Saad bin Laden, living in Iran, is reportedly in contact with the cell shortly before the attack.
2004 – present
Iran supplies advanced IED technology to the insurgents in Iraq. There is growing evidence of Iranian support for both Sunni and Shiite insurgency groups in Iraq. Iran continues to harbor senior al-Qaeda leaders as the terrorist network reorganizes.
January 20, 2007
IRGC and Hezbollah terrorists kill five American soldiers in Karbala, Iraq
January 2007 – present
Numerous IRGC and Hezbollah terrorists, who are responsible for arming and training terrorist groups in Iraq, are captured by American and Iraqi forces. 82 national security studies.
http://demediacraticnation.blogspot.com/2007/10/irans-timeline-of-terror.html
Just curious how would you describe this?
Why does the US have to accept it?
jonathan
September 16th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
No but I bet you are a disinformation artist
warren
September 16th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Please leave. It is obvious you are a paid shill and your employers are not getting their moneys worth.
jonathan
September 16th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
This is what goes on
why does the US have to take it?
Quote:
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Iran’s Timeline of Terror
I followed the link at the end of the article to his essay published September 11, 2007 at The Claremont Institute. “Iran’s Proxy War Against America, (PDF)” covers the evidence of Iranian links to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups regardless of their Sunni, Shiite or Palestinian sympathies. ……
November 4, 1979
Fifty-two American citizens are taken hostage by “students†loyal to Ayatollah Khomeini. They are held for more than a year, until January 20, 1981. The kidnappings are part of the Iranian revolution, which serves as a model for Sunni terrorist groups like Ayman al-Zawahiri’s Egyptian Islamic Jihad.
April 18, 1983
Iran’s master terrorist, Imad Mugniyah, orchestrates the first significant Islamist suicide attack against America: the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. Establishing a modus operandi for terrorists in the years to come, the attacker utilizes a van packed with explosives.
October 23, 1983 Using massive truck bombs, Hezbollah’s suicide bombers simultaneously attack the U.S. Marine Barracks and a housing complex for French Paratroopers in Beirut, Lebanon. Al-Qaeda would later adopt simultaneous suicide bombings as its preferred method for committing attacks.
December 12, 1983
Iranian-backed terrorists bomb the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait. A close relative of Imad Mugniyah is convicted by a Kuwaiti court and sentenced to death for his role in the bombing. Other attackers,
also supported by Iran, are imprisoned. The terrorists come to be known as the “Kuwait 17†or “Dawa 17.†75 iran’s proxy war against america
March 16, 1984
William Buckley, the CIA’s station chief in Beirut, is kidnapped and later tortured-to-death by Imad Mugniyah’s Hezbollah. Buckley’s kidnapping is one in a series of Hezbollah’s kidnappings from the early 1980s through the early 1990s. Dozens of Americans are kidnapped and Hezbollah frequently demands an exchange for the Kuwait 17. Hezbollah’s kidnappings lead to the biggest scandal of President Ronald Reagan’s tenure, the Iran-Contra affair, after the Reagan administration agrees to exchange arms for the hostages.
September 20, 1984
Hezbollah terrorists strike the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut with a truck bomb.
December 3, 1984
Mugniyah’s operatives hijack Kuwait Airways Flight 221. The hijackers attempt to barter for the release of the Kuwait 17.
June 14, 1985
Mugniyah’s terrorists hijack TWA Flight 847. Once again, the hijackers attempt to barter for the release of the Kuwait 17. When the hijackers’ demands are denied, they beat and kill a U.S. Navy serviceman, Robert Dean Stethem, who happened to be on the flight. Incredibly, Germany granted parole to one of the hijackers in December 2005.
jonathan
September 16th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
1990
According to Ali Mohamed, a top al-Qaeda operative in U.S. custody, Ayman al-Zawahiri’s Egyptian Islamic Jihad partners with Iran in a planned coup attempt in Egypt. Tehran trains EIJ terrorists for the coup attempt, which is ultimately aborted. Iran also pays al-Zawahiri $2 million for sensitive information concerning 76 national security studies the Egyptian Government’s plans to raid several islands in the Persian Gulf.
1991
Iran and Sudan, then the world’s only Islamist states, forge a strategic alliance. They begin to jointly export terrorism throughout the world.
April 1991
Hassan al-Turabi hosts the first Popular Arab Islamic Conference in Sudan. The conference provides a forum for disparate forces in the Middle East who oppose American presence in the region to come together. Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Iraqi and Iranian representatives all attend the meeting.
February 26, 1993
Terrorists connected to al-Qaeda and the global terror network bomb the World Trade Center using a rental truck packed with explosives. The bombers’ colleagues plot a follow-on attack against landmarks in the NYC area. There is no known evidence that Iran had a hand in these events. It is clear, however, that several of the plotters had ties to Hassan al-Turabi’s Sudan. Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, the spiritual leader of the two leading Egyptian terrorist groups (both of which will join al- Qaeda) and who was living in the New York metropolitan area, is later convicted for his involvement in the attacks. Reports surface that he and his organization received financial assistance from Iran.
1993
According to Ali Mohamed, Imad Mugniyah and Osama bin Laden meet in Sudan. Bin Laden expresses his desire to model al- Qaeda after Hezbollah. In particular, bin Laden expresses interest in Mugniyah’s bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in 1983 77 iran’s proxy war against america and similar attacks. They agree to work together against America and the West.
1993
According to Jamal al-Fadl, an al-Qaeda operative in U.S. custody, bin Laden meets a leading Iranian sheikh in Sudan. The purpose of the meeting is to put aside any differences between their competing brands of Islam in order to come together against their common enemy: the West. The meeting is just the first of several between bin Laden and Iran’s spiritual leaders.
1993
Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps train al- Qaeda’s terrorists in camps in Sudan, Lebanon and Iran. Among the terrorists trained are some of bin Laden’s most trusted lieutenants and al-Qaeda’s future leaders.
1993
Egypt and Algeria cut off diplomatic ties with Iran. Both nations accuse Iran and Sudan of supporting Sunni terrorism, including terrorist groups affiliated with al-Qaeda. Egypt will blame Iran for supporting both the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Group throughout the 1990’s.
November 13, 1995
Two bombs are detonated, nearly simultaneously, at the Saudi National Guard training facility in Riyadh, killing five Americans. The suspects are captured and confess to being inspired by Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden denies responsibility, but praises the attack. It is likely al-Qaeda’s first terrorist attack inside the Saudi Kingdom. 78 national security studies
November 19, 1995
An al-Qaeda suicide bomber destroys the Egyptian Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan. The CIA’s Bob Baer later learns that Mugniyah’s deputy assisted al-Qaeda in the attack and that one of bin Laden’s top terrorists remained in contact with Mugniyah’s offi ce months afterwards.
May 1996
Bin Laden is expelled from Sudan, but the 9/11 Commission reports that “intelligence indicates the persistance of contacts†between al-Qaeda and Iran even after al-Qaeda’s relocation to Afghanistan. Bin Laden and al-Qaeda maintain an ongoing presence in Sudan, despite not being “formally†welcome.
June 21 – 23, 1996
Tehran hosts a summit for the leading Sunni and Shiite terrorist groups. It is announced that the terrorists will continue to focus on U.S. interests thoughout the region. Mugniyah, bin Laden, and a leading member of the EIJ reportedly forge the “Committee of Three,†under the leadership of Iran’s intelligence chief, to focus their joint efforts against American targets.
June 25, 1996
Hezbollah terrorists, operating under the direction of senior Iranian officials, bomb the Khobar Towers apartment complex in Saudi Arabia. Contemporaneous reports by both the State Department and the CIA note that al-Qaeda is also suspected of playing a role. The 9/11 Commission would later find “indirect evidence†of al-Qaeda’s involvement. The evidence includes intelligence indicating that al-Qaeda was planning a similar operation in the months prior and that bin Laden was congratulated by other al-Qaeda operatives, including Ayman al-Zawahiri, shortly after the attack. 79 iran’s proxy war against america
July 1996
According to Bob Baer, the Egyptian Islamic Group—an ally of bin Laden’s al-Qaeda—is in contact with Mugniyah.
1996
According to Bob Baer, there is “incontrovertible evidence†of a meeting between bin Laden and a representative of the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS).
August 7, 1998
Al-Qaeda’s suicide bombers simultaneously destroy the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. It is al-Qaeda’s most spectacular attack prior to 9/11. The attack is clearly modeled on Hezbollah’s attacks in the early 1980s. Indeed, the al-Qaeda terrorists responsible were trained by Hezbollah in the early 1990s. There is evidence that Iran also provided explosives used in the attack.
October – November 2000
Imad Mugniyah and his lieutenants personally escort several of the 9/11 muscle hijackers out of Saudi Arabia on flights to Beirut and Iran. In all, eight to ten of the hijackers travel through Iran on the way to 9/11.
December 2000
Ramzi Binalshibh, al-Qaeda’s key point man for the 9/11 plot, applies for visa at the Iranian Embassy in Berlin. His visa application is approved.
January 31, 2001
Ramzi Binalshibh arrives at Tehran International airport. He does not return to Germany until February 28, 2001. The purpose of his trip to Iran remains a mystery. The 9/11 Commission does not mention Binalshibh’s trip to Iran. 80 national security studies
Early September 2001
Binalshibh flees to Iran shortly before the 9/11 attacks.
September 11, 2001
Nineteen al-Qaeda hijackers execute al-Qaeda’s largest operation to date, killing nearly 3000 Americans. Many of the details surrounding the plot, including who financed the attack, remain a mystery.
October 2001
According to a high-level Taliban detainee at Gitmo, Iran offers the Taliban Government assistance in retreating from Afghanistan.
October 2001
Numerous press reports indicate that Iran aids the retreat of hundreds of al-Qaeda and Taliban members from Afghanistan. Some al-Qaeda operatives enjoy safehaven in Iran to this day. Among them is Said al-Adel, who is reportedly the third highest ranking member of al-Qaeda and was trained by Hezbollah during the early 1990s, and Saad bin Laden, Osama’s heir apparent.
April 11, 2002
Al-Qaeda carries out the first attack ordered by bin Laden since 9/11: a suicide bomber destroys a synagogue in Tunisia, killing nineteen people. According to NBC News, Saad bin Laden contacted the cell responsible for the attack from his safehaven in Iran. Suleiman Abu Ghaith, bin Laden’s spokesman, also claims al-Qaeda’s responsibility for the attack from his abode in Iran.
End of 2002 – Spring 2003
According to former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, senior al-Qaeda leaders discuss the acquisition of nuclear weapons from their safe haven in Iran. In fact, al-Qaeda’s “nuclear 81 iran’s proxy war against america chief,†Abdel al-Aziz al-Masri, is one of many senior terrorists living in Iran.
May 12, 2003
Under orders from Saif al-Adel and Saad bin Laden, who are operating from Iran, al-Qaeda’s terrorists simultaneously strike three separate housing complexes in Riyadh Saudi Arabia. Another al- Qaeda agent thought to be responsible for the attack flees to Iran before he can be captured.
May 16, 2003
One dozen al-Qaeda bombers attack several targets in Casablanca, Morocco. Saad bin Laden, living in Iran, is reportedly in contact with the cell shortly before the attack.
2004 – present
Iran supplies advanced IED technology to the insurgents in Iraq. There is growing evidence of Iranian support for both Sunni and Shiite insurgency groups in Iraq. Iran continues to harbor senior al-Qaeda leaders as the terrorist network reorganizes.
January 20, 2007
IRGC and Hezbollah terrorists kill five American soldiers in Karbala, Iraq
January 2007 – present
Numerous IRGC and Hezbollah terrorists, who are responsible for arming and training terrorist groups in Iraq, are captured by American and Iraqi forces. 82 national security studies.
http://demediacraticnation.blogspot.com/2007/10/irans-timeline-of-terror.html
Just curious how would you describe this?
Why does the US have to accept it?
jonathan
September 16th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
you number has been debunked.
The 655,000 number has been debunked.
Also why ought the US be charged with those the insurgents or Al Qaeda kill?
And in fact the US ought not be charged for insurgents dead either.
Quote:
How to explain the enormous discrepancy between The Lancet’s estimation of Iraqi war deaths and those from studies that used other methodologies? For starters, the authors of the Lancet study followed a model that ensured that even minor components of the data, when extrapolated over the whole population, would yield huge differences in the death toll. Skeptical commentators have highlighted questionable assumptions, implausible data, and ideological leanings among the authors, Gilbert Burnham, Riyadh Lafta, and Les Roberts.
Some critics go so far as to suggest that the field research on which the study is based may have been performed improperly — or not at all. The key person involved in collecting the data — Lafta, the researcher who assembled the survey teams, deployed them throughout Iraq, and assembled the results — has refused to answer questions about his methods.
Some of these questions could be resolved if other researchers had access to the surveyors’ original field reports and response forms. The authors have released files of collated survey results but not the original survey reports, citing security concerns and the fact that some information was not recorded or preserved in the first place. This was a legitimate problem, and it underscored the difficulty of conducting research in a war zone.
Each death recorded by the Hopkins surveyors in 2006 extrapolated to 2,000 deaths in the Iraqi population.
Over the past several months, National Journal has examined the 2006 Lancet article, and another [PDF] that some of the same authors published in 2004; probed the problems of estimating wartime mortality rates; and interviewed the authors and their critics. NJ has identified potential problems with the research that fall under three broad headings: 1) possible flaws in the design and execution of the study; 2) a lack of transparency in the data, which has raised suspicions of fraud; and 3) political preferences held by the authors and the funders, which include George Soros’s Open Society Institute.
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm
jonathan
September 16th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
lives saved cause of US actions count too.
Without the US Saddam would have to killed off the Kurds and attack Kuwait..
Those lives count too.
jonathan
September 16th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,50830,00.html
This is how it is not accurate, you dope
jonathan
September 16th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
the translators of the books were attacked in nations as far away in Japan,
but that is cool with you.
Appeaser
Eugene Costa
September 16th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
An interesting idea, Sir Salmon as a member of the Anglo-American-Islamo-Zionist conspiracy.
Agatha Christie might have a ball: as his book sales and literary reputation flags, Sir Salmon knocks of a translator. Sales soar.
What is Oliver North doing nowadays. Has he got his teeth fixed yet?
Kenneth
September 16th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
This doesn’t refute a single claim of mine. It merely confirms that Arafat rejected the peace offer, I point I conceded and outlined the reasons for.
Kenneth
September 16th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
This number doesn’t originate from the Lancet- it comes from the ORB, a respected polling agency: http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78
Moreover, you don’t have any proof that Saddam was plotting a second round of aggression against Kuwait. You continue to recite this claim to deflect criticism of American imperialism. It isn’t working.
hjmaiere
September 16th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Eugene Costa: “Bernard Baruch? A barrel of monkeys on a cupcake, hehe.”
If you like your humor dark and bloody.
Kenneth
September 16th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
The links between Iran and Al-Qaeda are quite narrow and tenuous. The alliance, if it may be called that, is predominantly one of expedience, part of the broader goal of expelling America from the region, given past animosities between Iran and the Taliban. Moreover Iran appears to be playing a double game; witness its cozying up to the American-backed governments in both Iraq and Afghanistan. http://www.parstimes.com/news/archive/2005/rfe/afghanistan_iran_relations.html, for instance. Finally, one mustn’t omit American support for terrorism- in particular PKK, the SCIRI, and the Northern Alliance. America, of course, always has the option of withdrawing from the Middle East and thereby removing the terrorists’ causus belli, but this course seems beyond the pale in Washington.
Eugene Costa
September 16th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
The rich landowners used their privileged status to dislocate farmers and create surplus labor for the factories.
That is misleading and misses several key points.
When you uncover what those key points are, some of your cherished notions, evidenced above, will need profound revision.
Don’t let me stop you.
You don’t seriously expect me to go read the Wikidpedia article on enclosure and do a critique for you?
Like most rhetoricians and sloganeers, and that peculiar psychology that tries to learn what it doesn’t know by debating and disagreeing, you seem both insecure and quite lazy.
I have noticed these traits sometimes correlate with birth order. It is very often younger children who display them.
Eugene Costa
September 16th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Sir Salmon here serves some pretty weak tea:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v20VvP19kCI
Is this what all the hullabaloo is about?
Perhaps an inspired translator might make something of it.
Between the priceless gems of Borges and Heller’s PFC Wintergreen this rings insipid and completely unoriginal.
Guess one was right not to buy the book after all.
Incidentally, on the same topic, among Gore Vidal’s best novels is the now very unjustly neglected little piece, Messiah, which here and there reaches almost the level of the best of Bulgakov, though in a direction that is almost exactly opposed.
ingrate
September 16th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
The Texas A&M engagement is mentioned under appearances on his web-site, but it doesn’t say that it is a debate. Also, there is no mention of the debate in his blog. Probably just has not had the time.
Eugene Costa
September 16th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Alliance?
One of my very early predictions about the American attack on Iraq, about the time it clearly became an occupation, was this–yes indeed, given enough time and money and troops, the Americans would be able to unify the factions in Iraq.
Against them.
It was not long after that that one began to hear, stray and guarded, but still audible, a sentence or two from odd Shi’ite giving left-handed compliments to Saddam Hussein, that, for example, and however bad he was, he was not the Great Satan.
The United States also did him the great favor of making him a martyr, with the shahada on his lips as his last words.
The fact is that he could have gone into an easy exile at almost any time, even after the beginning of the Second Gulf War. The Russians offered it to him.
However he came to power, he did not leave it as docile client and puppet of Britain and the US.
The irony is that the Iranians and others are now pursuing, much more successfully than he did, some of the very strategies that Saddam Hussin mapped out earlier in regard to the politics and economics of oil.
When one hears a good word from a Kurd, it will be all over.
But compared to the Turks, and admittedly only after they fought for it, the Kurds had more autonomy than they ever got from any regime in the area for very long years.
hjmaiere
September 16th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Paraphrasing Wikipedia: “The rich landowners used their privileged status to dislocate farmers and create surplus labor for the factories.”
Eugene Costa: “That is misleading and misses several key points…When you uncover what those key points are, some of your cherished notions, evidenced above, will need profound revision.”
Earlier you wrote: “The British liberals, in fact, were in some ways very similar to the Neo-Cons, not in ideology, but in the way they infiltrated themselves into the body politic and destroyed it from within.”
Regardless of my understanding–or possible lack thereof–of ‘enclosure,’ you simply are either ignorant of, or deliberately misrepresenting classical liberalism. But folks are free to read Locke, Bastiat, Rothbard, and Hoppe for themselves.
Let’s see if I can’t hit the nail on the head again: The *one* key point of Marxist economics (beyond all the otherwise occasionally valid class analysis) is that capitalism (the private ownership of the means of production) is a class relationship. That is, he posits that it is exactly the ‘imposition’ of (mutually binding rules of) property rights by which wealth is extracted from worker to capitalist.
Strangely, he posits this in the face of overwhelming institutionalized privilege–institutionalized privilege that in fact inspires (classical) liberalism in the first place. Again strangely, he lives (very well) at the expense of well-landed sponsors.
I’m repeating myself, but as I’ve noted in the past, Marx might acknowledge class conflict in the form of “free man and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild master and journeyman,” but Marx conspicuously circumvents any suggestion that differences in rules regarding property were exactly what distinguished oppressor and oppressed in these class conflicts. Instead, we are supposed to concern ourselves with a much more ethereal notion of class conflict that by no coincidence prescribes that the means of production be placed in the hands of ‘society’ which by no coincidence in practice places the means of production into the hands of the state.
Marxist economics have long since been thoroughly debunked, but that doesn’t get any attention in any government-subsidized educational institution.
Nope, Marx, like the neo-cons, was a professional intellectual in the employ of the plutocracy. Like the neo-cons, his job was argument by obfuscation. Even outright identification of the ‘capitalist’ bad guys serves the interests of the plutocracy as long as he got the true means of their exploitation completely wrong.
Eugene Costa
September 16th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
My dear fellow, you prove yourself a complete fool.
I don’t have any more time to waste on the matter.
Since you still have not learned a damned thing about the mechanism of enclosure, which does not hinge on ideology (just the reverse), and already have a pat answer that satisfies you it seems, you may now proceed to the much greater task of learning what an ignoramus you are.
Eugene Costa
September 16th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
It may be a bit stricter : “All those who oppose the Neo-Cons in any word or deed the world over.”
Mike P
September 17th, 2008 at 12:59 am
Well, in a way reading johnathan’s rantings is somewhat nostalgic for me. I haven’t seen neocons use these types of message board tactics in several years. Since then most of them have lost the energy for it, and most of the country has turned against the war. These types of comments seem more and more divorced from reality, and have been relegated to little uber-neocon ghettos on the web like littlegreefascists, where a few paranoid individuals exercise their fevered imaginations over various muslim conspiracy plots.
Keep it going johnathan, you are only discrediting yourself. Thanks!
Ali
September 17th, 2008 at 5:57 am
Scott Horton suggests that America and Iran sat down and decided to have Iraq for lunch. That is a totally misleading recount of the events. Iran was against the invasion and occupation of Iraq from the beginning. It never condoned nor helped America in its invasion and occupation of Iraq. However, after the invasion it was a different story. Iran could not and cannot abandon its Shia friends and brothers and sisters of Iraq. The relationships are too deep to be ignored or vetoed for the conveniences of the moment. Again, it was the Sunni population of Iraq who started attacking Shias first. To this day the casualties on the part of Shia’s far outnumbers the Sunni casualties, and that includes the ones that are murdered by the American military in Iraq. Unfortunately the mess is so conclusive that even the antiwar elements of America often get it totally wrong. As I said, Iran is perfectly willing to let America take care of the mess, but it has become crystal clear that after five years of occupation of Iraq, the last thing that America and Israel want in Iraq, is stability and peace.
Nerissa
September 17th, 2008 at 6:04 am
I have to admire Jonathan’s patience and forebearance and his sincerity in defending the unfairly reviled Israeli government. How can you blame the Israeli Government for fulfilling its manifest destiny? How can you blame them for thinking an arsenal of 300 nukes could protect them from the ravening Palestinian hordes? How can you blame them for the beautiful relationship they have cultivated with the American Government – that noble relationship where America sacrifices its own to protect Israel?
Jonathan I am amazed by the reasoned arguments, clear moral positions and the amazing depth of links and backup information you have provided. It is so heartening to see Horatio on the bridge, fighting off antiwar apologist trolls with nothing but wit and moral clarity and facts.
Kudos. You are a true American.
hjmaiere
September 17th, 2008 at 6:21 am
Eugene Costa: “My dear fellow, you prove yourself a complete fool.”
More ad hominem. Gee, I must have hit the nail on the head again!
matt r.
September 17th, 2008 at 7:36 am
Well done, Scott, even though I don´t agree with your libertarian-isolationist mindset. Kushner is a typical neo-con bigot, so much so that he can´t even hide behind the usual platitudes, the way Richard Perle and others do in public. He´s not just you´re run of the mill nationalist pro-warrior, but a bona fide racist (most of the neocons are, when you cut through the high-minded rhetoric). I wish you´d have called him on that more directly. And I wish you hadn´t agreed with his truly disgusting comment about there being no “Iraqi dream” or “French dream”. American militarism is the result of many things, but pure nationalist narcissism is certainly high up on the list.
jonathan
September 17th, 2008 at 7:53 am
Isn’t Ron Paul the guy who takes money from White supremists.
Anyway keep apologizing for the Bathists , the Khomeni followers and the Al Qaedists. They are the real fascist and they thank you for all your support
jonathan
September 17th, 2008 at 7:54 am
THE man who helped mix the deadly one-tonne Bali nightclub bomb Sawad, alias Sardjiyo, yesterday said he wanted to thank the Australian people who had supported his cause during recent Australian anti-Gulf War protests.
“I want to thank the Australian people who supported our cause when they demonstrated against the policies of George Bush. Say thank you to all of them,” Sawad said.
http://www.e-thepeople.org/article/24818/view?viewtype
jonathan
September 17th, 2008 at 8:03 am
1. The fact is that the posters here engage in selective criticism.
2. No Israel is wrong for the settlements. That doesn’t make what its enemies do correct.
And Israel has offered to give up most of the settlements. Just cause you are a disinformation artist Nerissa doesn’t change the facts.
It is not about protecting Israel it is about that the US doesn’t have to accept attacks against it.
The US doesn’t have to give in to the Bathists , the Khomeni followers and the Al Qaeidsts.
Well Nerissa you have no reasoned arguments, no clear moral positions and no links or sites to support your views amazing depth of links and no backup information . In fact you have provided nothing .
At any rate you have no problem with rascism , ethnic cleaning just as long as it is directed against the right people.
Kudos you are a vile human and a waste of O2
jonathan
September 17th, 2008 at 8:06 am
Oh a conspiracy .
If someone says something U don’t like and can’t answer it is a conspiracy.
MOONBAT
jonathan
September 17th, 2008 at 8:09 am
2008-09-16 19:06:11
Kenneth the moonbat wrote:
The links between Iran and Al-Qaeda are quite narrow and tenuous. The alliance, if it may be called that, is predominantly one of expedience, part of the broader goal of expelling America from the region, given past animosities between Iran and the Taliban. Moreover Iran appears to be playing a double game; witness its cozying up to the American-backed governments in both Iraq and Afghanistan. http://www.parstimes.com/news/archive/2005/rfe/afghanistan_iran_relations.html, for instance. Finally, one mustn’t omit American support for terrorism- in particular PKK, the SCIRI, and the Northern Alliance. America, of course, always has the option of withdrawing from the Middle East and thereby removing the terrorists’ causus belli, but this course seems beyond the pale in Washington.
The US doesn’t support the PKK.
The US supports differnet kurds. In fact the US backed Kurds have fought with the PKK you dope
The US only supported the Northern alliance after Bin Laden begain attacking the US and the Northern alliance was no worse than the Taliban
Moreover being against the Bathists , the Khomeni followers and the Al Qaeists is a good thing it is a of justice.
jonathan
September 17th, 2008 at 9:00 am
You don’t give replies of any substance and your facts are wrong.
By the way the US doesn’t support the PKK stupid
eep
September 17th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Jonathan, I’m curious what would you have the US do? The US is going broke and entering a recession. The Democracy promotion has not worked. The Muslim people are resistant and resentful of American military being on Arab lands. The countries were invented by Western powers, dividing ethnic groups into different countries thus creating a violent mess.
Eugene Costa
September 17th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Excellent statement of what is, sorrily, not obvious even to many Americans who are against the present lunacy of American intervention in Mesopotamia and the Near East, including now, the disaster that the US military and its idiotic political overseers have caused in Afghanistan. Starting a war with Pakistan and attacking Iran are obviously just further steps in miring the US, whoever is in charge of the Federal Executive, in the hallucinatory quagmire that is the Neo-Cons’ New American Century.
In fact, at this rate, any “American Century” is long gone. Not that what it may have been in the Twentieth Century was anything but Anglo-American imperialism covered by systematic hypocrisy and deceit, including “democratic values”.
Eugene Costa
September 17th, 2008 at 10:29 am
You quoted Baruch earlier.
Wasn’t it Baruch who said (fere)=-a man with nothing but a hammer makes everything into a nail? To note that someone has no idea what he is talking about is not necessarily ad hominem, is it?
What you confuse as an opponent is actually your own thumb. It is likely still numb. The moment you stop hammering it, and your own head, you may discover how much damage you have done to yourself.
Then again perhaps not.
Happy hammering and many merry returns.
Eugene Costa
September 17th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Merely by the way, your style reminds of another poster on this site and elsewhere under a different name.
Far be it from me to worry about it or pursue it in any way, but it is at least worth noting.
Nadine
September 17th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Exactly where did I claim that the picture was photoshopped?
Greater Israel consists of land from the Nile to the Euphrates. Buy yourself a map and tell me if that includes only Palestine. Haven’t you even minimal familiarity with Jewish tradition?
Kahane was openly calling for the removal, or ethnic cleansing, of all Palestinians from their lands by any means necessary.
The new link you provided was still pretty useless, no sources were cited or provided for further reading. And the quote you’d already posted was the ONLY mention of the Mufti.
You can call me an apologist, a bitch, an appeaser and a bigot all you want.
I think most people here have had enough of your incoherent tirades.
hjmaiere
September 17th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Eugene Costa: “To note that someone has no idea what he is talking about is not necessarily ad hominem, is it?”
My motivation in responding to your original posts was to correct your mischaracterization of classical liberalism. You bring up something called ‘enclosure’ as if somehow with that single word you have completely discredited it. Out of raw curiosity I look into ‘enclosure’ only to discover it seems to mean many different things depending on who’s talking, and was only one element of a whole lot of different things going on at the time, some of which I was already familiar with through other readings. Yet you refuse to offer any hint about what you mean by the term, let alone how it supposedly discredits classical liberalism. To try to move things forward, I attempt to characterize classical liberalism in a way that anyone can easily confirm for themselves from original sources, and even later back it up with a quote. You dismiss it as ‘absurd’ with no other explanation.
From your substitution of epithets for any actual content in subsequent posts, I can only guess I’ve said something that has really angered you. I suspect it is the fact that I have characterized progressives in general, and Marx in particular, like the neo-cons after them, as unwitting whores of the plutocracy. (I’ve spent the last few years trying to figure out in the case of Marx whether it was unwitting or not. I have concluded that at least in the case of Keynes and Galbraith that they were clearly aware of their role.)
As for my nom de plume, it is the only one I have used in this forum.
MetaCynic
September 17th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Hey Jonathan! Since you are so certain as to who is Good and who is Evil and so passionate that Justice prevail in the Middle East, I am sure that at this moment your are putting your life where your mouth is and donning your cammies, strapping on your helmet and loading your rifle. I am sure that you’re infectious enthusiasm for this cause has inspired all your friends, relatives and coworkers to join the crusade. Bless you and them for working to lift the burden of empire from the shoulders of the long suffering American taxpayers who see no reason to care about who does what to whom so far away.
Someone somewhere will enshrine your worthy crusade in legend for demonstrating to all that you are prepared to lay down your lives to rid the world of the existential threat of terrorism. Keep us posted of your progress.
Rodrigo
September 17th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Easy there, hombre, I was just curious…you must admit that it was a reasonable suspicion given your below-average English and your devotion to Israel.
I have another question: are you a sayanim?
P.S. In any event, your champion Kushner was soundly defeated.
Eugene Costa
September 17th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Enclosure is directly related to what you call “Classical Liberalism”, according to your own absurd definition, which is also purely theoretical.
I could easily give you a reading list, and had the conversation proceeded as a dialectic instead of in terms of your adversarial debating and eristic and the rest, I might have done so.
Actually, if you read my first comments very closely I do mention another aspect you are obviously unfamiliar with, as are all the “Austrians” and most other “economists” as well.
I first encountered Locke more than four decades ago, with some returns to this or that work simply to check other contexts.
The man is at least as scattered-brained as Marx or Hegel, perhaps much more.
The brighter Marxists at least are very penetrating in much of their critical analysis.
Indeed, Marcuse applies his criticism to both the Captilist Fascist society that is now the US and also to the old Soviet “Communism”, which was another version of State Fascism.
Hayek and Schumpeter and the other “Austrians” are economically naive in the extreme.
Keep hammering away.
Rodrigo
September 17th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Seems like the usual amorphous terrorist groups (with mysterious origins) are being linked to Iran by the usual dubious “intelligence” sources.
You are going to have to do better than that to persuade the rational among us to invade Iran.
Anyway, if the problem truly is Al-Qaeda, isn’t it easier to take out terrorist cells with commandos and intelligence operatives? Why go to the trouble of attacking and invading (and thereore antagonizing) a whole nation?
Eugene Costa
September 17th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
corr: scatter-brained.
richard vajs
September 17th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Jonathan,
Give it a break, Son. You must have posted 40 entries on this general discussion alone. You have thrown out hundreds of Zionist talking points, emptied whole catalogs of disinformation, inflated infinite miniscule points, and ignored mountains of facts (when convenient). Get some more help, will you; you’re no Samson capable of destroying 20,000 enemies of Israel all by yourself – even if you are using his weapon of choice.
Kenneth
September 17th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
I do give such replies. You never specify which facts I get wrong, and the United States does indeed support the PKK: http://www.turkishweekly.net/editorial.php?id=29
jonathan
September 17th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Well the US needs to do what it will take to win.
Bring back the Clinton peace plan.
invest in alternative energy,
tax imported oil
raise the gas tax
talk to Iran
build rods from god -to deal with Iran
get Europe to declare all of Hizzbollah a terror group
assassinate anyone in the mideast of note that calls for holy war.
That is a start.
jonathan
September 17th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Oh if you don’t agree with them they are zionist talking point.
The fact is that what you post isn’t accurate and it is okay to show that it isn’t.
Talking points or not what I said is accurate and what you say isn’t.
I know you would like to supress anyone with an alternative view but then that is what your type would do should they ever get power.
jonathan
September 17th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
You don’t know my personal history and I don’t need to give it out on the internet.
I don’t owe you that.
Rodrigo
September 17th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Jonathan says: “assassinate anyone in the mideast of note that calls for a holy war”
Jonathan, does this mean we get to assassinate prominent rabbis who call for a holy war against the goyim? Or Israeli politicians who call for a holy war against Iran?
Jonathan says: “build rods from god-to deal with Iran”
Are you speaking of nuclear rods? Are you seriously favoring a nuclear strike against Iran? That would kill millions of innocent people. But isn’t that wicked thing to do? Where is your conscience, Jonathan?
jonathan
September 17th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Israel’s enemies are racist crimimal states. (say it is not so)
How do you know Israel dropped cluster bombs in Lebanon out of spite?
Anyway if Hizzbollah is an organization that is not out to destroy Israel then Israel went to far in Lebanon but if Hizzbollah is an organization that is out to destroy Israel then why ought Israel not do everything to destroy Hizzbollah.
The UN is a corrupt and selective organization more than that UN 242 calls for land for peace not unilateral withdrawal by Israel for nothing – not that facts are your strong suit but
Abuse of American trust?
I agree the US ought not give money to Israel but the US spends just as much on South Korea.
Israel is involved in a genocidal war? Prove it.
What is a zionist American? Anyone who disagrees with you?
anyway you are a fascist (though I don’t know if you are American)
Anyway none of what yous aid above true or or not (mostly untrue) this changes the fact that Israel’s enemies behave worse than Israel.
None of the above changes that Bathists , Khomeni followers and Al Qaedists are fascist bigots.
and whatever nothing changes the fact that you are a disinformation artists who enagages in selective criticism and propaganda.
It doesn’t change the fact that while entangling alliances isn’t the American way giving in to fascist bigots cause they threaten to blow stuff up isn’t the American way either.
Last it doesn’t it doesn’t change the fact that Richard Vajs is a disassembler.
jonathan
September 17th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
prominent rabbis who call for a holy war against the goyim.
If you can find them – can you?
especially those who call for attacks against the US?
can you find ‘em?
Though I dont’ know why you bring in Jews every arguement. Oh I know why.
No rods from god is not nuclear.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWJw8Wn3jpk
but anyway Iran is building nuclear weapons that would kill millions of people
The US would be right to match Iran. If Iran wants to go nuclear the US ought to respond by building such a system.
If Iran does any kind of terror attack the US would retaliate by using such system to destroy Iran’s nuclear program. .
It is up to Iran. They can have nuclear weapons but they can not have the strategic benefits of having nuclear weapons.
The war by Al Qaeists , Khomeni followers and Bathists is a wicked unjustified thing that kills innocent people and they have killed many muslims. Being against Khomeni or Bin Laden or the Bathists isn’t being anti muslim in any way.
Remember Khomeni killed many muslims.
Saddaam killed many muslims
And Bin Laden killed many muslims . What relgion are those of the Northern Allaince?
They ought to give up their war and if they don’t want to give up their war then most anything the US does to force them to do is okay.
The US doesn’t have to accept their war. Let them give up their war.
So I got a deal let the Bathists , the Khomeni followers and the Al Qaedists quit their war and then it will all be cool.
jonathan
September 17th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
does this mean we get to assassinate prominent rabbis who call for a holy war against the goyim?
Sure if you can find them.
You know of any who are calling for war against the uS
Or Israeli politicians who call for a holy war against Iran
didn’t Iran and Israel used to have good relations before Khomeni came to power. Iran is out to get Israel and not the otherway around.
rods from god is not nuclear.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWJw8Wn3jpk
Iran is working on nuclear weapons that would kill millions of people. They are trying to change the balance of power – the US is justified in trying to change the balance of power back the way it was.
The war by the Bathists the Khomeni followers and the Al Qaedists kills many innocent people. The Bathists the Khomeni followers and the Al Qaedists have killed many muslims.
They ought to give up their war. They don’t have a right to their war.
Iran can have nuclear weapons but they can not be allowed to have the benefits of having nuclear weapons.
If Iran does any more terror strikes then the US could use a system to destroy Iran’s nuclear program.
It is up to Iran.
The US doesn’t have to accept a war against it.
Eugene Costa
September 17th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Asi, the Jawbone of the Burro, as the Senor Chavez say.
Eugene Costa
September 17th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
You don’t know my personal history and I don’t need to give it out on the internet.
Ah well, given the various measures unconstitutionally implemented by the Bush and Cheney administration, the government surely knows, even if the poster is from Tel Aviv.
On the other hand, administrations change and technology seldom remains secret for long.
So many Serbs in computer science, nowadays, for example. Startling development.
MetaCynic
September 17th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
And what will winning look like, Jonathan? We were told by the best and the brightest that Iraq would be a cakewalk. It certainly was a piece of cake walking in. Now the greatest army that ever existed, representing the will of the greatest superpower that ever existed is on a death march through quicksand brought to a standstill by a bunch of guys armed with nothing more than AK47s and IEDs. Any non-nuclear suggestions?
This cakewalk is shaping up like the ancient Athenian invasion of Syracuse. You really should read up on it to understand what the outcome will be if the neocons are insane enough to tangle with Iran. For starters, Iran’s Russian supplied supersonic cruise missiles will sink the entire US fleet in the Gulf. Then as punishment for Europe’s involvement, Russia will cut off the 40% of Europe’s oil and gas which it provides. Next, all oil traffic from the Gulf will come to a halt. And finally, since it is supplied through the Gulf and then overland from Kuwait, the US army in Iraq will be forced to surrender to the guys armed with AK47s. Any non-nuclear, non-WW3 starting suggestions for dealing with that scenario?
The resulting international financial and economic trauma will be the Godzilla to today’s Lehman’s and AIG’s Bambi. And all this unpleasantness for what? The unwillingness to leave people alone in the neocons’ zeal to impose on Muslims the same inconsequential Western democracy that we are “blessed” with.
As for the oil. It will continue to flow to our shores regardless of who owns it. The only ones who care about who owns it are those in the West who would like to own it. It’s time that we recognize that terrorists can best be swatted with detectives and not armies. It’s time that all American bases overseas be dismantled, the troops brought home and all defense pacts abrogated. Americans are long overdue to mind their own business which of late is in need of much minding as a result of the demands of empire.
MetaCynic
September 17th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
What about all the religious leaders in America braying for holy war in the Middle East so that they and their flock will get VIP treatment at the gates of heaven?
Rodrigo
September 17th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Gee how comforting, according to the video you link to, your “rods of god” star-wars weapons are non-nuclear, but *strike with the force and lethality of nuclear weapons.*
So again I ask–are you favoring an attack on Iran with these “rods of god” weapons?
eep
September 17th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
The Palestinians didn’t like the Clinton Peace Plan. I think they said it would result in Palestinian states surrounded by Israeli Military. I don’t believe the Israelis or Palestinians will have peace. They are divided and covet what each other has and they have historical grievances. The cycle of violence needs to stop for their to be peace. If one side shows weakness the other will draw blood. They are fighting for territory and possibly the fight won’t end until one is vanquished. Israel has superior firepower but the Arabs have superior birthrates. I wonder why can’t they live together in peace. I’m sure most of them are reasonable but there is the hardcore who don’t want it. I think this is an innate defect in human beings. We split off into tribes and are territorial.
What do you think about the US arming Arab nations and Israel? Ron Paul was for ending their funding. Muslims are angry at the US for supporting these regimes according to Michael Scheuer. What relationship should the US have with the Muslim world? Should we have military bases there and support unpopular regimes? I’m not talking about standing by and letting genocide happen like in WWII but not interfering in the little squabbles and arming the different sides. Is there a logical reason to arm and support Arab tyrannies? I don’t see it.
I like the idea of investing in alternative energy. I disagree on taxing gas more than it already is. It is harming the economy. I read that in July it was 49.4 cents to a gallon.
Why do you think Europe hasn’t declared Hezzbollah a terrorist group? I read they don’t want to harm the peace process (if it can be called that). I guess they are concerned about stability in Lebanon (read they do social services) and their own countries.
What do you think about the compromised position we are in concerning Iran. The Iraqi government as Scott Horton pointed out is sympathetic to Iran. Our supply lines are said to be easy targets for Iran. An attack would leave American troops hostage. What happens the day after we use the rods of god? I worry that the rods of god could be hacked into by terrorist or an enemy nation, becoming their rods of god. I don’t think Iran will stop uranium enrichment. They have the right under the NPT to enrich uranium if I understand it correctly. What line does Iran cross before negotiations end and war begins?
How about continuing the nation building in Afghanistan and Iraq where the US is bleeding to death? Is this the optimal use of American resources? The British and Russians failed in their attempts to bring civilization to Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden wanted the US in Afghanistan to bleed it to death just like the Russians. Michael Scheuer said it is to get the US out of the way so they can go after the Arab tyrannies and Israel. The big problem from what I’ve read is Al Qaeda leadership has vanished. The US doesn’t know where they are to kill them. Then there is Iraq. Saddam is long gone and the US is propping up an Iran friendly regime. Is this in America’s interest?
MetaCynic
September 17th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Jonathan: Why should the US care whether or not Iran has nuclear weapons? You really should brush up on history. Our stockpile deterred the vastly more menacing Soviet Union and will undoubtedly deter puny Iran. Unlike the Armaggedonites here, the Iranian leadership is not suicidal. They are wise to understand that the neocons will not attack any nation possessing nuclear weapons.
jonathan
September 17th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
That is not the motive for the US war in the mideast.
Wars to steal oil are wrong.
A war to force people to change their relgion is wrong.
Iraqs oil belongs to Iraq not the US. IF the mideast doesn’t want to sell the US oil that is US’s problem however the US doesn’t have to tolerate war against it by Bathists , Khomeni followers and Al Qaedists.
hjmaiere
September 17th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Eugene Costa: “Indeed, Marcuse applies his criticism to both the Captilist Fascist society that is now the US and also to the old Soviet ‘Communism’, which was another version of State Fascism.”
Some name-dropping, some condescending mumbo-jumbo sprinkled with a couple incredulous (and unsupported) assertions. Still no genuine content, no concrete statements, no references. Fewer ad hominem attacks. I guess that’s progress.
There was a time I might have been able to describe the difference between Presbyterian and Methodist. I had more energy then. I’ve read Fromm, I’ve read Illich, not because my intellectual pursuits naturally lead in those directions, but because they were the recommendations of people I respected. But one day I got chewed out by some Marxist for my apparently inappropriate over-accounting of the influence of the Hegelian dialectic with respect to his particular interpretation of Marxist gospel.
I call bull. Time to think things through for one’s self. Locke ain’t gospel. Marx ain’t gospel. Evolution has programmed us with the innate desire to achieve and maintain tribal consensus. 99.9% of all political philosophy is intellectual masturbation in pursuit of–when not predatorial manipulation of–tribal consensus, with no apparent understanding or acknowledgment of the fact that our modern economic prosperity has nothing to do with any of this.
And to bring all of this back on topic, peace isn’t about trying to establish global tribal consensus. It’s about figuring out how to live together despite the fact that we will never be able to achieve global tribal consensus. Anyone with a grand plan for society is not an agent for peace. Honest libertarians will always advocate the institutionalization of mutually-binding rules of conduct regarding property, but they will (if they are sincere) never advocate the coercive financing or imposition of these rules (modulo self defense). Any other position would be self-contradictory.
The main obstruction to the goal of peace is the fact that the paracitical classes prey on our instinct to interpret the dictates of authority as the voice of tribal consensus, and they happen to feed on war. It’s worth mentioning here that a whole lot of people have been murdered by governments describing themselves as ‘communist.’ To be fair, governments in general are responsible for more murder in the form of war, and theft in the form of taxes, than all the ‘private’ criminals put together.
jonathan
September 18th, 2008 at 6:01 am
Well I would hope not. If Iran goes nuclear then it is a game changer , so the game needs to be changed back. The conversation starts in Iran develops nuclear weapons
Iran can have their nuclear weapons and nuclear teachnology that they claim is their right but they can not be allowed the benefits of nuclear weapons.
It is all up to Iran.
They get nuclear weapons then they need to give up their war. Nuclear weapons will not be a shield for them to continue sponsoring terror.
If Iran wants to take this the conclusion then this is how it will end. They will be disarmed.
It is up to Iran -all they need to do is give up their war.
The US doesn’t have to accept a a low level war against it.
jonathan
September 18th, 2008 at 6:42 am
Iraq Is Said to Mass Troops Near Kuwait
*
REUTERS
Published: October 2, 1995
Iraq is massing tanks and troops close to the border of Kuwait, causing intense debate within the Pentagon, The Sunday Times of London reported today.
The report, which quoted Pentagon officials as saying Iraq was secretly massing troops in the south, said they cannot dismiss the possibility that Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein, was planning another invasion.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9504E0DD1539F931A35753C1A963958260
jonathan
September 18th, 2008 at 6:47 am
Of course Iran can avoid all of this by 1) not going nuclear or 2) giving up its war
The object here is deterrence but if Iran goes nuclear and they won’t be detered then they need to be disarmed.
jonathan
September 18th, 2008 at 7:02 am
Then if US nuclear weapons are so powerful then why does Iran want them?
Exactly though you hit it Iran wants nuclear weapons so they can shield themselves from the consequences of supporting terror and also to be able to threaten other nations not to cooperate with the US against Iran.
but if the US has the right weapons Iran won’t be able to use nuclear weapons as a shield .
They US will be able to destroy them.
Iran’s nuclear program will no longer be a shield . Instead it will be a hostage.
If Iran continues to sponsor terror then they will be disarmed.
Remember Iran has be engaging in a low level war against the US for a long time.
Not acceptable.
jonathan
September 18th, 2008 at 7:04 am
Well if the US govt really needs info on me I got nothing to hide.
but that doesn’t mean you are entitled to it.
jonathan
September 18th, 2008 at 7:20 am
Olmart did not mean Nile to the Euphrates when he talked about ” a greater Israel.” He was talking about the west bank. You disinformation artist.
Kahane is dead . and he wasn’t out to get all arabs everywhere. And Hizzbollah is much more powerful. No comparison.
Here is about the Mufti.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni
Ok and Nadine one more time you are an apologist, a bitch, an appeaser a bigot and a waste of O2
jonathan
September 18th, 2008 at 7:24 am
What? Not devoted to Israel.
Kushner wasn’t defeated and he isn’t my champion.
sayanim- what’s that?
jonathan
September 18th, 2008 at 7:32 am
“ROSS: Now, that was an Israeli desire. That was not what we presented. But we presented something that did point out that it would take six years before the Israelis would be totally out of the Jordan Valley.
So that map there that you see, which shows a very narrow green space along the border, would become part of the orange. So the Palestinians would have in the West Bank an area that was contiguous. Those who say there were cantons, completely untrue. It was contiguous. ”
SO KENNETH YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE DETAILS OF THE OFFER IS NOT ACCURATE.
BUT IT WOULD NOT BE THE FIRST TIME YOU WERE NOT ACCURATE . WITH YOU IT IS MORE LIKE “ALL THE TIME”
jonathan
September 18th, 2008 at 7:34 am
September 14, 2007
VIOLENT DEATHS IN IRAQ….A British polling company recently surveyed 1,461 adults in Iraq and asked each one, “How many members of your household, if any, have died as a result of the conflict in Iraq since 2003?” Based on the results, they say that 1.2 million Iraqis have died violent deaths in the past four years.
The methodology here is nowhere near as detailed as that of last year’s Lancet study, which produced a figure of about 650,000 war-related deaths in three years (and probably would have produced a number of about 1 million if it had been extended into 2007), but at first glance it certainly seems to support the notion that the violence rate has been far higher than usually reported. However, here’s a second glance:
According to its findings, nearly one in two households in Baghdad had lost at least one member to war- related violence, and 22% of households nationwide had suffered at least one death. It said 48% of the victims were shot to death and 20% died as a result of car bombs, with other explosions and military bombardments blamed for most of the other fatalities.
Hold on. 20% of the deaths were from car bombs? That’s 240,000 deaths. Since the average car bomb kills about 7-8 people, this poll is suggesting there have been nearly 32,000 car bomb attacks in Iraq since 2003.
Roughly speaking, that’s 20 car bombs per day, compared to official estimates of 2-3 car bombs per day. And while overall death counts are necessarily fuzzy, car bombs are big public events that usually get reported fairly reliably in the media.
So….I dunno. As I recall, there was a similar criticism of the Lancet study on this particular point, and I’m not sure how it got resolved. I know some of my readers have delved pretty deeply into the Lancet controversy, so maybe they can help out in comments. Overall, though, unless you think that car bombs have been massively underreported, which is harder to believe than it is for death counts in general, this result suggests that household self-reporting of violent deaths in Iraq may be prone to exaggeration.
Alternatively, there are way more car bombs in Iraq than we think.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_09/012063.php
AH ANOTHER STUDY FALLS DOWN.
jonathan
September 18th, 2008 at 7:37 am
Whatever Eugene you are a disinformation artist and a moonbat.
MetaCynic
September 18th, 2008 at 8:01 am
Jonathan: I don’t know about you, but most posters on this site are Americans. I can’t recall the last time, if ever, that Iran sponsored a terrorist attack on American soil. Why should Americans hate Iran? Maybe we are supposed to hate the present Iranian government because of the US embassy hostage crisis during the Carter administration. That incident was the blowback for CIA involvement during the 1950s in deposing a democratically elected government and installing the hated American puppet, the Shah. The lesson there and elsewhere is to not meddle in the internal affairs of other countries.
Iran is not a threat of any sort to the US unless madmen rush us into another criminal war. It’s highly likely that war and American saber rattling in the Middle East has provoked Iran into flooding the US with sleeper agents who upon a US attack on Iran will paralyze the homeland with chemical and bio weapons attacks. That will be a horrific price for the McSheep to pay for the joys of regime change and nation building.
It is American imperialism on behalf of certain political and business interests that is threatening to destabilize the world and plunge us into a global war. A big step in ratcheting down war hysteria would be for Immigration to deport all those with dual loyalties back to their favorite little country in the Middle East.
jonathan
September 18th, 2008 at 8:15 am
I don’t think the US ought to invade Iran.
I don’t even think the US ought to bomb Iran – not now anyway.
I think the US ought to be ready to change the game if Iran develops nuclear weapons .
MetaCynic
September 18th, 2008 at 10:34 am
And where is Iran “sponsoring terror”? In Palestine, Lebanon and Israel? In the American colony of Iraq? So what! What does that have to do with us here in the US thousands of miles from those hell holes? Why should we Americans have to continue to pay the price in lives and treasure in order to save others from the folly of their own making? Let them solve their problems themselves. There would be no “low level war” against us if our government did not have a totally unnecessary military presence in the Middle east.
Why the hell should we risk ruining our economy, losing our liberties and plunging the entire world into war in order to prop up dictatorships and to fight other people’s crappy little wars? Since you are so easily scared, Jonathan, pick up a rifle and go disarm Iran. Why should we Americans do it for you?
Rodrigo
September 18th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Jonathan:
There is no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons. All of their nuclear energy projects are within the boundaries set by the IAEA for the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Iran is also an actual signatory to and in compliance with the UN treaties regarding the development of nuclear energy.
Rodrigo
September 18th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Jonathan:
There is no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons. All of their nuclear energy projects are within the boundaries set by the IAEA for the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Iran is also an actual signatory to and in compliance with the UN treaties regarding the development of nuclear energy.
P.S. Israel refuses to be a signatory to the UN nuclear power treaties. Suppose Iran gets a bomb or two…that will simply be a minimal counterbalance to Israel’s 300 nuclear weapons.
If you dislike Iran so much–go attack it yourself. Quit trying to drag Americans into your private war.
Kenneth
September 18th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
One detail was inaccurate. The others were correct. This is hardly consistent inaccuracy.
Kenneth
September 18th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
From the New York Times article you cite:
The troop movements were detected by satellite, the newspaper said. It said some Pentagon officials would like to strike immediately against the Iraqi troops, while others argue that the intelligence is unclear.
Recall, as well, that this article is dated to 1995. We don’t know what the situation was on the Iraqi border as of 2003. The evidence you present is, at best, highly inconclusive. As concerns the article on the ORB, large swathes of Iraq are effectively outside American control, so a massive underreporting of car bombings and related attacks is highly likely. Journalists are confined to the safe- ie, American dominated- zones.
Eugene Costa
September 18th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Yes, Nicias stumbling about Syracuse making sacrifices and delving omens.
Apt.
Eugene Costa
September 18th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
My dear fellow, you would not know a concrete statement if it dropped on your head.
I dropped two very concrete statements on your noggin. You don’t recognize either.
When you get over the concussion and get to work you may figure out what they were.
Eugene Costa
September 18th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
The interesting question is why this fellow has shown up just at this time.
It certainly has nothing to do with stating facts. He is likely smart enough to know he is not intimidating anyone.
The google search function perhaps, and making sure others will know what the PR response will should they question the Neo-Con and Israeli Hitler-of-the-week catechism on Iran?
Preemptively accusing others of exactly what one does is a Neo-Con tactic. This suggests a studied effort at disinformation.
Eugene Costa
September 18th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Thanks for sparing me the gory details.
Eugene Costa
September 18th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
The use of “moonbat” is a dead giveaway.
MetaCynic
September 18th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
So what if Iran is building nuclear weapons. One of the worst kept secrets is that Israel has possessed such weapons for many years. Why should the US fight nuclear-armed Israel’s enemies? The last time that I checked a map, Iran was still in Israel’s neighborhood, not America’s. With or without nuclear weapons, Iran is no threat to America. More than enough Americans have already died fighting other people’s wars. The cost of our pointless, global military presence in the Middle East and everywhere else is cratering our economy. If you and your Zionist comrades think that your precious Israel is threatened by Iran, cash in your 401Ks and go volunteer on an undercover suicide mission to Iran to destroy its nuclear weapons program.
America’s military presence in the Middle East has succeeded only in stirring up a hornet’s nest and ruining our economy. So, Jonathan, the only sane and rational response to your warmongering on behalf of that parasitic little theocracy, Israel, is, “why should we care what happens to a belligerent country which refuses to get along with its neighbors?”
jonathan
September 18th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
There is evidence they are trying to get nuclear weapons but it is not a smoking gun.
Iran may of signed a stuff. Iraq signed stuff they were working on nuclear weapons in the late 80′s despite that. It is just paper.
Iran is out to get Israel , Israel isn’t out to get Iran. Before Khomeni came to power Israel had good relations with Iran.
But more than that Iran wants nuclear weapons so they have have a shield to protect them from the consequences of sponsoring terror and to make sure other countires won’t cooperate with the US against Iran.
Remember if Iran gave up their war they would not have the problems they do with the US. They are at fault not the US.
It is not a private war , Iran has been engaged in a low level war against the US since Khomeni came to power. Just cause you are either ignorant or an apologist for Iran doesn’t make it otherwise.
And Rods from God is a game changer that would cancel out Irans nuclear program.
If Iran gets a bomb or two they better give up their war . Otherwise they ought to be disarmed once and for all.
jonathan
September 18th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
WHY DOES IRAN WANT NUCLEAR WEAPONS ? SO THEY CAN CONTINUE TO DO THIS KIND OF STUFF
why does the US have to take it?
Quote:
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Iran’s Timeline of Terror
I followed the link at the end of the article to his essay published September 11, 2007 at The Claremont Institute. “Iran’s Proxy War Against America, (PDF)†covers the evidence of Iranian links to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups regardless of their Sunni, Shiite or Palestinian sympathies. ……
November 4, 1979
Fifty-two American citizens are taken hostage by “students†loyal to Ayatollah Khomeini. They are held for more than a year, until January 20, 1981. The kidnappings are part of the Iranian revolution, which serves as a model for Sunni terrorist groups like Ayman al-Zawahiri’s Egyptian Islamic Jihad.
April 18, 1983
Iran’s master terrorist, Imad Mugniyah, orchestrates the first significant Islamist suicide attack against America: the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. Establishing a modus operandi for terrorists in the years to come, the attacker utilizes a van packed with explosives.
October 23, 1983 Using massive truck bombs, Hezbollah’s suicide bombers simultaneously attack the U.S. Marine Barracks and a housing complex for French Paratroopers in Beirut, Lebanon. Al-Qaeda would later adopt simultaneous suicide bombings as its preferred method for committing attacks.
December 12, 1983
Iranian-backed terrorists bomb the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait. A close relative of Imad Mugniyah is convicted by a Kuwaiti court and sentenced to death for his role in the bombing. Other attackers,
also supported by Iran, are imprisoned. The terrorists come to be known as the “Kuwait 17†or “Dawa 17.†75 iran’s proxy war against america
March 16, 1984
William Buckley, the CIA’s station chief in Beirut, is kidnapped and later tortured-to-death by Imad Mugniyah’s Hezbollah. Buckley’s kidnapping is one in a series of Hezbollah’s kidnappings from the early 1980s through the early 1990s. Dozens of Americans are kidnapped and Hezbollah frequently demands an exchange for the Kuwait 17. Hezbollah’s kidnappings lead to the biggest scandal of President Ronald Reagan’s tenure, the Iran-Contra affair, after the Reagan administration agrees to exchange arms for the hostages.
September 20, 1984
Hezbollah terrorists strike the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut with a truck bomb.
December 3, 1984
Mugniyah’s operatives hijack Kuwait Airways Flight 221. The hijackers attempt to barter for the release of the Kuwait 17.
June 14, 1985
jonathan
September 18th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Mugniyah’s terrorists hijack TWA Flight 847. Once again, the hijackers attempt to barter for the release of the Kuwait 17. When the hijackers’ demands are denied, they beat and kill a U.S. Navy serviceman, Robert Dean Stethem, who happened to be on the flight. Incredibly, Germany granted parole to one of the hijackers in December 2005.
According to Ali Mohamed, a top al-Qaeda operative in U.S. custody, Ayman al-Zawahiri’s Egyptian Islamic Jihad partners with Iran in a planned coup attempt in Egypt. Tehran trains EIJ terrorists for the coup attempt, which is ultimately aborted. Iran also pays al-Zawahiri $2 million for sensitive information concerning 76 national security studies the Egyptian Government’s plans to raid several islands in the Persian Gulf.
1991
Iran and Sudan, then the world’s only Islamist states, forge a strategic alliance. They begin to jointly export terrorism throughout the world.
April 1991
Hassan al-Turabi hosts the first Popular Arab Islamic Conference in Sudan. The conference provides a forum for disparate forces in the Middle East who oppose American presence in the region to come together. Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Iraqi and Iranian representatives all attend the meeting.
February 26, 1993
Terrorists connected to al-Qaeda and the global terror network bomb the World Trade Center using a rental truck packed with explosives. The bombers’ colleagues plot a follow-on attack against landmarks in the NYC area. There is no known evidence that Iran had a hand in these events. It is clear, however, that several of the plotters had ties to Hassan al-Turabi’s Sudan. Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, the spiritual leader of the two leading Egyptian terrorist groups (both of which will join al- Qaeda) and who was living in the New York metropolitan area, is later convicted for his involvement in the attacks. Reports surface that he and his organization received financial assistance from Iran.
1993
According to Ali Mohamed, Imad Mugniyah and Osama bin Laden meet in Sudan. Bin Laden expresses his desire to model al- Qaeda after Hezbollah. In particular, bin Laden expresses interest in Mugniyah’s bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in 1983 77 iran’s proxy war against america and similar attacks. They agree to work together against America and the West.
1993
According to Jamal al-Fadl, an al-Qaeda operative in U.S. custody, bin Laden meets a leading Iranian sheikh in Sudan. The purpose of the meeting is to put aside any differences between their competing brands of Islam in order to
jonathan
September 18th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
come together against their common enemy: the West. The meeting is just the first of several between bin Laden and Iran’s spiritual leaders.
1993
Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps train al- Qaeda’s terrorists in camps in Sudan, Lebanon and Iran. Among the terrorists trained are some of bin Laden’s most trusted lieutenants and al-Qaeda’s future leaders.
1993
Egypt and Algeria cut off diplomatic ties with Iran. Both nations accuse Iran and Sudan of supporting Sunni terrorism, including terrorist groups affiliated with al-Qaeda. Egypt will blame Iran for supporting both the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Group throughout the 1990’s.
November 13, 1995
Two bombs are detonated, nearly simultaneously, at the Saudi National Guard training facility in Riyadh, killing five Americans. The suspects are captured and confess to being inspired by Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden denies responsibility, but praises the attack. It is likely al-Qaeda’s first terrorist attack inside the Saudi Kingdom. 78 national security studies
November 19, 1995
An al-Qaeda suicide bomber destroys the Egyptian Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan. The CIA’s Bob Baer later learns that Mugniyah’s deputy assisted al-Qaeda in the attack and that one of bin Laden’s top terrorists remained in contact with Mugniyah’s offi ce months afterwards.
May 1996
Bin Laden is expelled from Sudan, but the 9/11 Commission reports that “intelligence indicates the persistance of contacts†between al-Qaeda and Iran even after al-Qaeda’s relocation to Afghanistan. Bin Laden and al-Qaeda maintain an ongoing presence in Sudan, despite not being “formally†welcome.
June 21 – 23, 1996
Tehran hosts a summit for the leading Sunni and Shiite terrorist groups. It is announced that the terrorists will continue to focus on U.S. interests thoughout the region. Mugniyah, bin Laden, and a leading member of the EIJ reportedly forge the “Committee of Three,†under the leadership of Iran’s intelligence chief, to focus their joint efforts against American targets.
June 25, 1996
Hezbollah terrorists, operating under the direction of senior Iranian officials, bomb the Khobar Towers apartment complex in Saudi Arabia. Contemporaneous reports by both the State Department and the CIA note that al-Qaeda is also suspected of playing a role. The 9/11 Commission would later find “indirect evidence†of al-Qaeda’s involvement. The evidence includes intelligence indicating that al-Qaeda was planning a similar operation in the months prior and that bin Laden was congratulated by other al-Qaeda operatives, including Ayman al-Zawahiri, shortly after the attack. 79 iran’s proxy war against america
July 1996
According to Bob Baer, the Egyptian Islamic Group—an ally of bin Laden’s al-Qaeda—is in contact with Mugniyah.
1996
According to Bob Baer, there is “incontrovertible evidence†of a meeting between bin Laden and a representative of the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS).
August 7, 1998
Al-Qaeda’s suicide bombers simultaneously destroy the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. It is al-Qaeda’s most spectacular attack prior to 9/11. The attack is clearly modeled on Hezbollah’s attacks in the early 1980s. Indeed, the al-Qaeda terrorists responsible were trained by Hezbollah in the early 1990s. There is evidence that Iran also provided explosives used in the attack.
October – November 2000
Imad Mugniyah and his lieutenants personally escort several of the 9/11 muscle hijackers out of Saudi Arabia on flights to Beirut and Iran. In all, eight to ten of the hijackers travel through Iran on the way to 9/11.
December 2000
Ramzi Binalshibh, al-Qaeda’s key point man for the 9/11 plot, applies for visa at the Iranian Embassy in Berlin. His visa application is approved.
January 31, 2001
Ramzi Binalshibh arrives at Tehran International airport. He does not return to Germany until February 28, 2001. The purpose of his trip to Iran remains a mystery. The 9/11 Commission does not mention Binalshibh’s trip to Iran. 80 national security studies
Early September 2001
jonathan
September 18th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Binalshibh flees to Iran shortly before the 9/11 attacks.
September 11, 2001
Nineteen al-Qaeda hijackers execute al-Qaeda’s largest operation to date, killing nearly 3000 Americans. Many of the details surrounding the plot, including who financed the attack, remain a mystery.
October 2001
According to a high-level Taliban detainee at Gitmo, Iran offers the Taliban Government assistance in retreating from Afghanistan.
October 2001
Numerous press reports indicate that Iran aids the retreat of hundreds of al-Qaeda and Taliban members from Afghanistan. Some al-Qaeda operatives enjoy safehaven in Iran to this day. Among them is Said al-Adel, who is reportedly the third highest ranking member of al-Qaeda and was trained by Hezbollah during the early 1990s, and Saad bin Laden, Osama’s heir apparent.
April 11, 2002
Al-Qaeda carries out the first attack ordered by bin Laden since 9/11: a suicide bomber destroys a synagogue in Tunisia, killing nineteen people. According to NBC News, Saad bin Laden contacted the cell responsible for the attack from his safehaven in Iran. Suleiman Abu Ghaith, bin Laden’s spokesman, also claims al-Qaeda’s responsibility for the attack from his abode in Iran.
End of 2002 – Spring 2003
According to former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, senior al-Qaeda leaders discuss the acquisition of nuclear weapons from their safe haven in Iran. In fact, al-Qaeda’s “nuclear 81 iran’s proxy war against america chief,†Abdel al-Aziz al-Masri, is one of many senior terrorists living in Iran.
May 12, 2003
Under orders from Saif al-Adel and Saad bin Laden, who are operating from Iran, al-Qaeda’s terrorists simultaneously strike three separate housing complexes in Riyadh Saudi Arabia. Another al- Qaeda agent thought to be responsible for the attack flees to Iran before he can be captured.
May 16, 2003
One dozen al-Qaeda bombers attack several targets in Casablanca, Morocco. Saad bin Laden, living in Iran, is reportedly in contact with the cell shortly before the attack.
2004 – present
Iran supplies advanced IED technology to the insurgents in Iraq. There is growing evidence of Iranian support for both Sunni and Shiite insurgency groups in Iraq. Iran continues to harbor senior al-Qaeda leaders as the terrorist network reorganizes.
January 20, 2007
IRGC and Hezbollah terrorists kill five American soldiers in Karbala, Iraq
January 2007 – present
Numerous IRGC and Hezbollah terrorists, who are responsible for arming and training terrorist groups in Iraq, are captured by American and Iraqi forces. 82 national security studies.
http://demediacraticnation.blogspot.com/2007/10/irans-timeline-of-terror.html
Just curious how would you describe this?
Why does the US have to accept it?
jonathan
September 18th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
LOOK Below stupid.
No Iran wants to control gulf oil to force the US to change foreign policy.
Iran has a right to Iranian oil they don’t have a right to control a strategic resource so they can blackmail the US.
Why ought the US allow Iran to have a say in US foreign policy?
Why ought Iran be able to have an effect on who the US has trade and diplomatic ties with? Why ought the US allow Iran to have an effect in how the US votes at the UN?
Metacynic why do you demand that we Americans give in to what Iran wants to stop Iran from going after the US?
Metacynic why do you apologize for the enemy. That you apologize for the enemy means that you have no business in telling US Americans what they ought to or not ought to do.
No giving in to the Bathists , the Khomeni followers and the Al Qaedists.
No appeasement – ever.
MetaCynic
September 18th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Jonathan: We wouldn’t want to suppress you anymore than a bored cat would want to immediately kill a rat. That takes the fun out of verbally batting around warmongers. In case you haven’t noticed, this site is called ANTIWAR.com. Clueless provocateurs will be greeted with the same gusto as a rat arrogantly wandering into a cat family’s backyard.
jonathan
September 18th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
If Iran goes nuclear then the US ought to invest and depoly Rods from God.
It is a better game changer than any Iranian nuclear weapon.
If Iran wants to change the game the US can also change the game back.
9-11 was a terrible event.
The US policy ought to be force the Bathists , the Khomeni followers and the Al Qaedists to give up their war.They don’t have a right to their war. No way no how.
Next time the US needs the right strategy. Having the right weapons will allow the US to impose its prefered method of war on the enemy .
The problem with Iraq is that the US could not impose its prefered method of war on the enemy. Instead the enemy was allowed to impose its prefered type of war on the US. The US needs to aim to fix that. It can be done, and it will change the game.
jonathan
September 18th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
What will winning look like well in Iran the government there decides to give up their war.
A game changer will help the US get Iran to understand this.
Game Changer
http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=MWJw8Wn3jpk
jonathan
September 18th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Prove it .
Eugene Costa
September 18th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
they don’t have a right to control a strategic resource
Why not?
The Iranians are already manipulating the pistachio supply. Or is that the California growers?
Haven’t pistachios been declared “a strategic resource” yet?
Fine spumoni the world over is under the gun.
Eugene Costa
September 18th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
A + B = 3
A = 2
Therefore, B = 1
There’s proof enough for you.
Or do you, like Goebbels think you have a “Gamechanger”?
Eugene Costa
September 19th, 2008 at 12:08 am
Has Homeland Security identifed the terrorist potential of Iranian pistachios:
Bulk container shipments of pistachio nuts are prone to self heating and spontaneous combustion because of their high fat and low water content…
[Wikipedia]
R. Nelson
September 19th, 2008 at 1:21 am
Hey buddy. You can call people slime, moonbats, fascists, morons, cat-jugglers, and mock Eric Garris hisself on this blog. Profanity is fine, preferably with an asterisk or two thrown in. Just don’t defend James Bovard by mocking another poster by comparing his name with fr. sp., a phrase I thought I invented as a jeering rhyme. Do the Lords of blogs know something I don’t?
And is your last name Pollard?
Eugene Costa
September 19th, 2008 at 1:46 am
Having got to the point of detente with Russia, the lunatics try to start a new Cold War.
As an answer to that, they now want to militarize Planetary and Interplanetary Space.
If that is what is on the backburner, a little clue: either the Russians or the Japanese or both of them together beat the US six days to Sunday.
And it is especially easy with a bankrupt US, with its failing schools and education, collapsing infrastructure, negative balance of payments, worthless dollar, and so forth.
Jonathan
September 19th, 2008 at 2:19 am
If Iran wants a game changer, the US has a right to one two.
You say Iran doesn’t want nuclear weapons – ok if they don’t then there will be no problem.
If they are lying and they do want them then we were right and you were wrong.
Neither Japan or Russia have great economic futures. China is hurt even more by high oil prices than is the US and China thanks to their one child policy is going to have a lot more old people living longer and not enough young people to take care of them .
But this is off topic .
No giving in to Iran. No game changing for Iran.
They will be easier to bring down than the Soviet Union.
And you got it as soon as Iran wants detente …
Those who followe Khomeni , Bin Laden and Nasser are the problem – not the US.
No giving in to Iran. No game changing for Iran.
Eugene Costa
September 19th, 2008 at 2:44 am
“There is evidence they are trying to get nuclear weapons but it is not a smoking gun.”
At the rate the US economy is collapsing the Iranians, with a little patience, will be able to buy as many nuclear weapons as they want, and a good part of the US Air Force for a year’s crop of pistachios.
The trouble with that is why would they want to buy such dinosaurs?
Stealth ship anyone–you’ll soon be able to get one for a song on E-Bay.
The most important and well-guarded secret of the US government: that the whole US government along with the financial and political and military elite are all terminally incompetent.
MetaCynic
September 19th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Jonathan: Since the objective of America’s lunatic foreign policy is to control the entire world, doesn’t it make sense that Iran and a few other countries would want a say so in how it impacts them?
As for controlling a strategic resource for the purpose of blackmailing others, who is a better role model than the US? Didn’t Clinton’s Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, brag that the US led economic embargo of former vassal, Iraq gone astray, which killed 500,000 Iraqi children, was worth it? Then there was the US led embargo of Serbia on behalf of Muslim terrorists in Bosnia and Kosovo followed by a US led bombing campaign which resulted in Serbia’s province of Kosovo being turned over to Albanian gangsters.
The pattern here is that Muslims who serve America’s foreign policy of global domination, such as the KLA in Kosovo against the Serbs, Bin Laden in Afghanistan against the Soviets and Saddam against Iran, are heroic freedom fighters, while Muslims who stand up to the Empire such as the later Bin Laden in Afghanistan, the later Saddam and the Iranian Mullahs are a terrorist threat to Western civilization.
Your hysterical, bloodthirsty screeds, Jonathan, indicate that you’re undergoing a character disintegration. It’s time for the cats to stop playing and to put another rat out of its misery.
MetaCynic
September 19th, 2008 at 9:44 am
What do you mean by “below average English,” Rodrigo. Jonathan is clearly an above average programmed product of the American public education system undergoing a personality disintegration caused by bloodthirstiness. He represents the pits at their heights.
MetaCynic
September 19th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Jonathan:
If China invaded and occupied Mexico and Canada would anyone be surprised if the US meddled in the occupations? If America supported local insurgencies, would we be praised for assisting freedom fighters or would we be damned for supporting terrorism?
MetaCynic
September 19th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Jonathan: If Russia with a 15% flat tax, very little external debt, the world’s 4th largest currency reserves and massive energy and raw material reserves, Japan with a disciplined, educated population and overwhelming technological know-how and China, the world’s factory and 30% savings rate, all have poor economic futures then what are America’s prospects?
The world’s policeman is now a penniless deadbeat drowning in debt. The arrogant, functionally illiterate McSheep expected to get rich in their day jobs selling pieces of paper to each other while planning to retire on the proceeds of flipping their grotesque McMansions every few years. In all this they were entertained by media propaganda with stories of the invincible, Lone Superpower’s glorious global Empire.
If we are to believe that unsustainable military spending doomed the Soviet Union to the trash heap of history, then what are the prospects of a bankrupt nation borrowing from all over to spend as much money preparing to fight imaginary enemies as the rest of the world combined? At this moment in history, Iran has a much brighter economic future than the incompetent US. I have no doubt that the, now humbled, Masters of the Universe in lower Manhattan are salivating at the prospect of being rescued by an Iranian SWF. And I’m not talking about a Single White Female!
Rodrigo
September 20th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
I agree,…there must be scores of full-time, paid neo-con/pro-Israeli hacks assigned the task of continually spamming chat rooms and comments sections throughout the internet.
Rodrigo
September 20th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
and you’re also right about the timing, the “why now?” issue. Something big is being planned.
Rodrigo
September 20th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
…you’re also right about the timing, the “why now?†issue. Something big is being planned.
Kenneth
September 21st, 2008 at 8:59 am
While I cannot vouch for its accuracy, Dutch intelligence predicts an American strike on Iran in October or so: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1220186494776&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
MetaCynic
September 21st, 2008 at 10:26 am
Jonathan: If the evil Saddam was so deeply involved in sponsoring terror throughout the Middle East, then why didn’t he have the sense to infiltrate sleeper agents into the US as his hedge against an American invasion of Iraq? These agents could have been trained and funded to brew up chemical and bio weapons to be used as a deterrent against an attack on Iraq.
For example, when the US saber rattling became deafening in early 2003 these agents could have released a video on the internet documenting an anthrax attack on a herd of cattle in the US. This could have been accompanied with a warning that a large American city would be next should American missiles rain down on Iraq. Just imagine the panic and economic paralysis as tens of millions of people fled major American cities.
This was a relatively cheap and easy terror event to sponsor, yet the supremely evil Saddam didn’t do so even when faced with obvious signs of an invasion which would depose him. Perhaps he was a slow learner. The Iranians, on the other hand, have had more than 5 years to understand that they are next and to plan for it.
So, Jonathan, if the bombs rain down on Tehran, you just might live long enough to regret your braying for war.
Ponerology
September 21st, 2008 at 10:43 am
It was Scott’s answer on the last question, about Israel, that upset Kushner so much that he would not shake his hand and the end of the debate.
Getirofepot
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Очень правдоподобно напиÑано.
Usefzinnina
December 17th, 2008 at 1:52 am
Привет
Маловато комментариев, а тема то хорошаÑ
Hogepinee
December 17th, 2008 at 5:56 am
Добрый день
реÑпект, таких блогов дейÑтвительно должно быть больше!
Urgeve
December 17th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Ðу как говоритÑÑ: Бог в помощь ;) Я тоже вернуÑÑŒ заполночь, буду ковырÑÑ‚ÑŒ.
hogan
July 31st, 2011 at 11:29 pm
Hogan is the most famous brand in the world. Now this is a good news for you that our Hogan Outlet offer Hogan Sito Ufficiale and Scarpe Hogan.You can visit our website.We promise it will satisry you well.Because its latest technology and fashionable patterns
hogan
July 31st, 2011 at 11:30 pm
From the French tradition of the old brand sac longchamp, nylon bag folding dumplings a woman heart than LV capture more “national package”, was popular in Paris almost a degree of man power. The streets of Europe are very popular in France sac longchamp pas cher home, walking on the road to see a woman in?every 10?to?at least one?with?this sacs longchamp pas cher.
Our shop supply sac longchamp, you can pay a cheap price for nice longchamp sac, also you can find it would be preferential treatment for you to get sacs longchamp from us. ?Come to our website. You can find it would be preferential treatment for you to get sacs longchamp pas cher from us.
prada
November 17th, 2011 at 1:30 am
Pretty good post. Ho appena imbattuto il tuo blog e volevo dire che ho apprezzato molto leggere il tuo post sul blog. Alcun modo sarò sottoscrivendo il feed e spero di postare di nuovo presto.
Lancel
November 17th, 2011 at 11:41 pm
Je suis vraiment plaisir à lire vos articles bien écrits. Il semble que vous passez beaucoup d'efforts et de temps sur votre blog. J'ai signet et je suis impatient de lire de nouveaux articles. Continuez votre bon travail!