Author Topic: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!  (Read 76453 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jbrid1138

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,199
  • Governments don't care, individuals do. MARK TWAIN
Re: Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1
« Reply #80 on: September 25, 2007, 08:03:04 am »
And the heck of it is -- many don't even know where Iran is.  Sad but true.  But that doesn't stop them from the hate they feel for a people they know nothing about, other than what the psyops have told them. 

Just as it was (is) for Iraq.  And look what we've done to that country -- and continue to do.

Wake up people: Your sons, your daughters, your husbands, your wives (whoops, better make that singular before upsetting some of that same crowd I mentioned earlier), your aunts, your uncles, your nieces, your nephews, your friends, your neighbors -- YOU // will most certainly have to go fight in a war that only makes sense to the corrupt and greedy sending us there.  Wake up.  Pay attention.  Listen, think -- and help put and end to this madness. 
We refuse to let our knowlege, however limited, be informed by your ignorance, however vast.
-- David Ray Griffin

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
 -- James Madison (Fourth President USA 1809-1817)

Offline jugger74

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 15
President Ahmadinejad at Columbia University Full Speech ***A MUST SEE***
« Reply #81 on: September 25, 2007, 08:12:19 am »
 This is the full speech including the disgusting comments from Lee Bollinger before the speech where he seems to infer that free speech is an inconvenience or technicality that he doesn't necessarily agree with which allows President Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia University. You don't have to agree with anything he says but I feel many of his points are at the very least arguable. He raises many questions about Globalists and their role in the world and their attempts to change and control societies through science. He also outlines how America was involved in many of the wars and terrorist events that have happened in the middle east.

http://digg.com/videos/people/President_Ahmadinejad_at_Columbia_University

Offline turkeybut

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
« Reply #82 on: September 25, 2007, 06:31:51 pm »
Why is it we don't see this on CNN:

Mystery surrounds deaths of Minot airmen
Sat, 22 Sep 2007 23:10:30
 
 
Capt. John Frueh 
Six members of the US Air Force who were involved in the Minot AFB incident, have died mysteriously, an anti-Bush activist group says.

The incident happened when a B-52 bomber was "mistakenly" loaded with six nuclear warheads and flown for more than three hours across several states, prompting an Air Force investigation and the firing of one commander.

The plane was carrying Advanced Cruise Missiles from Minot Air Force Base, N.D, to Barksdale Air Force Base on August 30.

The Air Combat Command has ordered a command-wide stand down on September 14 to review procedures, officials said.

The missiles, which are being decommissioned, were mounted onto pylons on the bomber's wings and it is unclear why the warheads had not been removed beforehand.

In addition to the munitions squadron commander who was relieved of his duties, crews involved in the incident, including ground crew workers had been temporarily decertified for handling munitions.

The activist group Citizens for Legitimate Government said the six members of the US Air Force who were directly involved as loaders or as pilots, were killed within 7 days in 'accidents'.

The victims include Airman First Class Todd Blue, 20, who died while on leave in Virginia. A statement by the military confirmed his death but did not say how he died.

In another accident, a married couple from Barksdale Air Force Base were killed in the 5100 block of Shreveport-Blanchard Highway. The two were riding a 2007 Harley-Davidson motorcycle, with the husband driving and the wife the passenger, police said.

"They were traveling behind a northbound Pontiac Aztec driven by Erica Jerry, 35, of Shreveport," the county sheriff said. "Jerry initiated a left turn into a business parking lot at the same time the man driving the motorcycle attempted to pass her van on the left in a no passing zone. They collided."

Adam Barrs, a 20-year-old airman from Minot Air Force Base was killed in a crash on the outskirts of the city.

First Lt. Weston Kissel, 28, a Minot Air Force Base bomber pilot, was killed in a motorcycle crash in Tennessee, the military officials say.

Police found the body of a missing Air Force captain John Frueh near Badger Peak in northeast Skamania County, Washington.

The Activist group says the mysterious deaths of the air force members could indicate to a conspiracy to cover up the truth about the Minot Air Base incident.
 

Offline RonPaulPwnz

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
  • Info warrior
New speech by Ahmadinejad at the UN today.
« Reply #83 on: September 25, 2007, 10:02:26 pm »
Here is the story which I have dugg on Digg.  Please watch the video.  I thought it was very moving and so important at this critical time.  Please Digg it too.

http://digg.com/politics/Beautiful_and_Moving_Speech_by_President_Ahmadinejad_of_Iran_at_the_UN
9/11 was an inside job!

Offline Matt Hatter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,543
Re: New speech by Ahmadinejad at the UN today.
« Reply #84 on: September 25, 2007, 10:21:14 pm »
Wonderful yes! I believe more than ever that Iran does want peace.

I picked up the Canadian "National Post" today and I was outraged. On the front cover was the Iranian President(cannot spell his damn name) in regards to the Columbia University speech, and all the headlines stated were "Denies Holocaust" and "Claims there are NO GAYS". OK I admit the gay comment he mentioned was a little uncalled for, however did he EVER say he denied the Holocost? NO! He said it should be researched. And that we should always research our history. He also questions 9-11 and he Never said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map. The one-sided media is really starting to look like a bunch of fools!

Offline maddog3n

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 472
  • "Every man dies, but not every man lives!" Wallace
Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
« Reply #85 on: September 26, 2007, 01:53:45 am »
Seems that the story is started from this website=

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=24190&sectionid=3510203

A link at the the Citizens for Legitimate Government's website of this story points you back at presstv.ir.  Obviously this means that Presstv is a website hosted out of Iran.

However, I am going to look at the people listed and see if they are dead.  If so when they were reported missing or found dead.

I will let you know what I find.
" The great secret of succeeding in conversation is to admire little, to hear much; always to distrust our own reason, and sometimes that of our friends; never to pretend to wit, but to make that of others appear as much as possibly we can; to hearken to what is said and to answer to the purpose. Bl

Offline maddog3n

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 472
  • "Every man dies, but not every man lives!" Wallace
Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
« Reply #86 on: September 26, 2007, 02:16:54 am »
www.ktbs.com/news/Married-couple-employed-by-Barksdale-killed-in-motorcycle-crash-5022/ - 57k

The web site you are accessing has experienced an unexpected error.
Please contact the website administrator.

The following information is meant for the website developer for debugging purposes.
Error Occurred While Processing Request
Error Executing Database Query.
[Macromedia][SQLServer JDBC Driver][SQLServer]String or binary data would be truncated.
 
Resources:

    * Enable Robust Exception Information to provide greater detail about the source of errors. In the Administrator, click Debugging & Logging > Debugging Settings, and select the Robust Exception Information option.
    * Check the ColdFusion documentation to verify that you are using the correct syntax.
    * Search the Knowledge Base to find a solution to your problem.

Browser      Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.7) Gecko/20070914 Firefox/2.0.0.7

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070915/BREAKINGNEWS/70915012
Remote Address      67.160.88.xxx
Referrer      http://www.google.com/search?as_q=married+couple+Barksdale&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=5100+block+of+Shreveport-Blanchard+Highway&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images
Date/Time      26-Sep-07 01:56 AM

which you will notice has my IP address but that is a separate issue.


However, if you don't use the Google link and paste the properly formatted link into your browser you get this:

Married couple employed by Barksdale killed in motorcycle crash

Created: September 15, 2007 09:27 PM     Modified: September 15, 2007 11:22 PM

A double fatal wreck this weekend involving a husband and wife from Barksdale Air Force Base.

It happened at 11:30 a.m. Saturday in the 5100 block of Shreveport-Blanchard Highway.

Caddo sheriff's deputies say the 29-year-old husband was driving a motorcycle with his wife as passenger. Deputies say he tried to pass in a no passing zone and collided with an SUV that was making a left turn.

His 32-year-old wife died at the scene. He later died at the hospital.

_______________________________________________

The link at: "www.ktbs.com/news/Married-couple-employed-by-Barksdale-killed-in-motorcycle-crash-5022/" also has a video clip of the actual on air report where it was reported that the couple were employees at Barksdale.  I take that too mean that they were not military but it doesn't really prove anything.

The second article I found gave me this result=

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070915/BREAKINGNEWS/70915012

Caddo deputies work double-fatality accident
September 15, 2007

Caddo Parish sheriff's deputies worked a wreck this morning in which two people from Barksdale Air Force Base were killed.

The accident, in the 5100 block of Shreveport-Blanchard Highway at 11:30 a.m., claimed the lives of a married couple. Their names have not been released, but the man was 29 and the woman was 32, according to a release from Caddo Parish sheriff's spokeswoman Cindy Chadwick.

The two were riding a 2007 Harley-Davidson motorcycle, with the husband driving and the wife the passenger, Chadwick said.

"They were traveling behind a northbound Pontiac Aztec driven by Erica Jerry, 35, of Shreveport," Chadwick's release said. "Jerry initiated a left turn into a business parking lot at the same time the man driving the motorcycle attempted to pass her van on the left in a no passing zone. They collided."

The woman passenger on the motorcycle died at the scene, while the husband was taken to LSU Hospital in Shreveport, where he died, the release said.

Further information on the victims is pending notification of their next-of-kin by Barksdale officials, the release said.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I think it is interesting that the one MSM couldn't report the names but the other could.  This could be because of the time of reporting or it could have been at update at the one but not the other.  You would still think that the ktbs would have updated their article.  Further, neither mentions the driver of the pontiac and his/her disposition.

Will continue looking at the other incidents except the one in VA as everyone has already heard about that one and discussed it already.
" The great secret of succeeding in conversation is to admire little, to hear much; always to distrust our own reason, and sometimes that of our friends; never to pretend to wit, but to make that of others appear as much as possibly we can; to hearken to what is said and to answer to the purpose. Bl

Offline maddog3n

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 472
  • "Every man dies, but not every man lives!" Wallace
Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
« Reply #87 on: September 26, 2007, 02:20:29 am »
The next one we already knew about and is a red herring as it happened before the nuke incident:

Authorities identify Minot airman killed in crash

Jul 5 2007 6:42AM
Associated Press
Minot, N.D. (AP) Authorities have identified a Minot Air Force Base man killed in a crash on the outskirts of Minot.

Base officials say 20-year-old Adam Barrs was a passenger in a vehicle that failed to negotiate a curve, hit an approach, hit a tree and started on fire late Tuesday night.

Barrs was pronounced dead at the scene.

The driver is identified as 20-year-old Airman Stephen Garrett.

He was taken to Minot's Trinity Hospital in critical condition.

http://www.kxmc.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=140988
" The great secret of succeeding in conversation is to admire little, to hear much; always to distrust our own reason, and sometimes that of our friends; never to pretend to wit, but to make that of others appear as much as possibly we can; to hearken to what is said and to answer to the purpose. Bl

Offline maddog3n

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 472
  • "Every man dies, but not every man lives!" Wallace
Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
« Reply #88 on: September 26, 2007, 02:22:47 am »
The next one is also before the Nuke incident:

Minot Airman dies in motorcycle accident
   
7/18/2007 - MINOT AIR FORCE BASE, N.D. -- A first lieutenant from Minot Air Force Base died in a motorcycle accident while on leave in Tennessee July 17.

First Lt. Weston Kissel, 28, was assigned to the 23rd Bomb Squadron as a B-52H Stratofortress pilot.

"Lt. Kissel was an outstanding officer and a superb B-52 pilot," said Lt. Col. Gerald Hounchell, 23rd BS commander. "Everyday he arrived at work with a 'can-do' attitude and a smile on his face. His leadership and friendship will be greatly missed by the 23rd Bomb Squadron Bomber Barons."

Lieutenant Kissel is a native of Tennessee. He graduated from the Air Force Academy in 2004 and arrived to Minot Air Force Base in July 2006.

The accident is under investigation.

http://www.minot.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123061162
" The great secret of succeeding in conversation is to admire little, to hear much; always to distrust our own reason, and sometimes that of our friends; never to pretend to wit, but to make that of others appear as much as possibly we can; to hearken to what is said and to answer to the purpose. Bl

Offline maddog3n

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 472
  • "Every man dies, but not every man lives!" Wallace
Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
« Reply #89 on: September 26, 2007, 02:31:24 am »
The next one I believe has no bearing with the nuke incident but I could be wrong.  Didn't the incident happen on the 30th of Aug?  If so it sounds like he was in WA or OR and not at either of the bases according to the article.  I am reading between the lines here, but I must admit that the lack of cause of death not being listed is troubling.  The article is below:

Body of missing Air Force captain found in Washington

Associated Press - September 9, 2007 11:15 PM ET

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - The body of a missing Air Force captain from Florida has been recovered in Skamania County, Washington.

Skamania County undersheriff Dave Cox says Captain John Frueh's rental car was found yesterday near Badger Peak and his body was discovered not far from the vehicle.

Cox says foul play is not suspected.

The 33-year-old captain arrived in Portland late last month to attend a friend's wedding. He last spoke with family on August 30th.


http://www.ktvz.com/Global/story.asp?S=7048007

This article says clearly that he was stationed in FL:

Body of missing Hurlburt Field Captain recovered
Wire and Staff Reports
Sunday September 9th, 2007

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP)

Undersheriff Dave Cox said Capt. John Frueh's rental car was found Saturday near Badger Peak and his body was discovered not far from the vehicle.

Cox said foul play is not suspected.

Frueh, 33, arrived in Portland late last month to attend a friend's wedding. He last spoke with family Aug. 30.

Frueh was assigned to "operations weather" for the Air Force Special Operations Command, according to AFSOC.
ラ The body of a missing Air Force captain from Hurlburt Field has been recovered in Skamania County, Wash., authorities said Sunday.

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/article/8908/
" The great secret of succeeding in conversation is to admire little, to hear much; always to distrust our own reason, and sometimes that of our friends; never to pretend to wit, but to make that of others appear as much as possibly we can; to hearken to what is said and to answer to the purpose. Bl

Offline maddog3n

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 472
  • "Every man dies, but not every man lives!" Wallace
Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
« Reply #90 on: September 26, 2007, 02:43:41 am »
So the only one that relates to the nuke incident is the couple at Barksdale so we have three people and not six. 

So I believe we are back to that this is a non-event as AJ has already pointed out.  Unless there is something else out there that we haven't heard about or there are connections that we cannot see.
" The great secret of succeeding in conversation is to admire little, to hear much; always to distrust our own reason, and sometimes that of our friends; never to pretend to wit, but to make that of others appear as much as possibly we can; to hearken to what is said and to answer to the purpose. Bl

Offline RonPaulPwnz

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
  • Info warrior
Re: New speech by Ahmadinejad at the UN today.
« Reply #91 on: September 26, 2007, 10:00:15 am »
I seriously hope people wake up fast.  I am telling everyone I know or anyone I meet.
9/11 was an inside job!

Offline jbrid1138

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,199
  • Governments don't care, individuals do. MARK TWAIN
Re: New speech by Ahmadinejad at the UN today.
« Reply #92 on: September 26, 2007, 10:15:35 am »
I took your lead and (thanks to you) am providing a more direct link to the speech. 
http://www.calgary911truth.org/my_weblog/2007/09/beautiful-and-m.html

Near the beginning I heard him make comment regarding how nations can coexist with each other -- very well stated; reminded me of what it was GWB tried to say months ago about coexisting with fish (which makes absolutely no sense).  This man does.

--edited to add:
Noticed around 40 seconds remaining that the CNN scroll at the bottom of the screen was mentioning that Governor Schwarzenegger has made it a law that companies in the State of California that do business with Iran will no longer get funding from the State // something like that.  The man at the podium is talking about peace while the undertones around him are talking aggression.
We refuse to let our knowlege, however limited, be informed by your ignorance, however vast.
-- David Ray Griffin

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
 -- James Madison (Fourth President USA 1809-1817)

Offline galiana

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Je pense, donc je suis.
Re: President Ahmadinejad at Columbia University Full Speech ***A MUST SEE***
« Reply #93 on: September 26, 2007, 01:44:36 pm »
It's well worth watching!

I hate to plug my own stuff, but:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/bowen1.html

There's an article about the speech and the on-campus reaction.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Bush and Congress ask Rothschild to print $190 Billion to start WWIII
« Reply #94 on: September 26, 2007, 09:08:49 pm »
Here it comes the absolute last piece for the WWIII puzzle:

    
Pentagon seeks 190 billion dollars for Iraq, Afghanistan
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/260907_b_dollars.htm
AFP-Wednesday, September 26, 2007

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Defense Secretary Robert Gates is seeking nearly 190 billion dollars to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2008, the largest war funding request ever in the six-year-old "war on terror," the Pentagon said Wednesday. Gates was scheduled to testify later before a Senate committee on the request, which was 42.3 billion dollars greater than the administration's estimate when it presented its 2008 budget request in February. "This additional 42.3 billion dollars puts us at just under 190 billion dollars for the global war on terror supplemental request for 2008 -- 189.3 billion dollars," said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary. More...
_______________________________

Less than $5 Billion will "support our troops."  The rest will be used for funding Al-Qaeda, funding more false flag terror campaigns at home/abroad, and pay for control over the media.

Rothschild/Rockefeller will print the money and we will be seen as the instigators in WWIII.

In addition, the dollar will be crushed and our country will be divide right down the middle, just like was done to the instigators of WWII.

All of the debates are staged and Clinton has already drummed up the Democrat support under the lie that it will help Democrats win in 2008.  Bush has drummed up Neo-Con support under the idea that an unprovoked attack on Iran will help the economy.

Get ready for selective service and full uncompromising fascism!

Bullshit on top of Bullshit.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline This American

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 54
Re: Bush and Congress ask Rothschild to print $190 Billion to start WWIII
« Reply #95 on: September 26, 2007, 10:28:57 pm »
It is intersting you mentioned about the country being divided right down the middle. I have often had the feeling that one of the purposes of the purported NAU highway (alleged) 3 footbal fields wide corridor is to act as a divider between the West America and the East America. One can imagine having to go through a checkpoint to go from east to west or vice-versa and easily inagine the reason for the huge Denver airport complex might be to be the new capital of the west. History replaying? Airport's artwork seems appropriate.

These globalists seem to have a past of first breaking down the current structure and then trying to rebuild it in their own grand design going from sovereign nations, into redrawn sections under their control. I wonder if many many years from now we will have some foreign leader standing on a podium somewhere telling our far far future decendents dictatorial leader-- after the fall-- "Sir..... Tear Down That Wall".

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Hannity And Fox News Lay Out Their War Plan For Attacking ‘Ticking Bomb’ Iran
« Reply #96 on: September 26, 2007, 11:50:52 pm »
Gen. Sean Hannity And Fox News Lay Out Their War Plan For Attacking ‘Ticking Bomb’ Iran
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/26/fox-strike-ticking-iran/
The Fox News network is now in full drumbeat mode, trying to promote a war against Iran.


Last night, armchair General Sean Hannity did his part to beat the Iran war drums. On Hannity and Colmes, the bellicose host devoted half the show to previewing “what a U.S. strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities would look like“:

HANNITY: Mission: Iran Showdown. The objective: destroy and disable Iran’s top nuclear facilities, impact its ability to process and enrich uranium, delay its ability to manufacture and deploy nuclear weapons, all while crippling the ruling regime.

The network also announced that this Saturday at 9 pm, it will air a “Fox News investigative piece” entitled Iran: Ticking Bomb. The show will be hosted by Dan Senor, the former spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority. Watch it:


Fox has also been parading one pro-Iran war voice after another.

Earlier in the evening, Hannity hosted former UN ambassador John Bolton to discuss Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech at the United Nations. Asked by Hannity “when will America and must America at some time respond militarily,” Bolton responded, “well, I think it’s entirely appropriate.

Later in the evening, Hannnity brought AEI’s Michael Ledeen and Ret. Col. Chuck Nash on the show to validate the need to bomb Iran. The two analysts are both hawks advocating “regime change” in Iran. Ledeen agreed with Hannity that America should attack “terrorist training camps” in Iran. Nash was open to the military option, but preferred other means.

On Monday, the network displayed a graphic that appears to sum up the fear-mongering feelings about Iran at Fox News: “Is war the only way to stop Mahmoud?”

UPDATE: Last month, Brave New Films put together a video showing how Fox’s rhetoric towards Iran is eerily similar to it’s pre-war rhetoric on Iraq. Watch it HERE.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline bigron

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
  • RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012
'A Coup Has Occurred' by Daniel Ellsberg
« Reply #97 on: September 27, 2007, 10:12:56 am »
Daniel Ellsberg, the former Defense Department analyst who leaked the secret Pentagon Papers history of the Vietnam War, offered insights into the looming war with Iran and the loss of liberty in the United States at an American University symposium on Sept. 20.

Below is an edited transcript of Ellsberg's remarkable speech:

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/ellsberg.php?articleid=11674

Offline jbrid1138

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,199
  • Governments don't care, individuals do. MARK TWAIN
Re: President Ahmadinejad at Columbia University Full Speech ***A MUST SEE***
« Reply #98 on: September 27, 2007, 11:05:13 am »
It's well worth watching!

I hate to plug my own stuff, but:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/bowen1.html

There's an article about the speech and the on-campus reaction.
Plug on -- good article //

***extracted***
In the end, Ahmadinejad’s address at Columbia University devolved into the sorry spectacle of President Bollinger making an utter fool of himself and his university on national television. The Iranian president came out looking much better than the university president. But both of them (and we) would have been better off had they (and Geraldo) stayed at home.
We refuse to let our knowlege, however limited, be informed by your ignorance, however vast.
-- David Ray Griffin

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
 -- James Madison (Fourth President USA 1809-1817)

Offline Stan

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,515
Re: Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1
« Reply #99 on: September 27, 2007, 11:38:31 am »
Columbia Won't Cancel Ahmadinejad Speech
 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092100483.html
Sep 21, 8:16 AM (ET)
 
City Council speaker Christine Quinn called Thursday for the university to rescind the invitation, saying "the idea of Ahmadinejad as an honored guest anywhere in our city is offensive to all New Yorkers."

Quinn said Ahmadinejad was coming to the city "for one reason - to spread his hate-mongering vitriol on the world stage."

His planned appearance at Columbia also was condemned by Jewish groups including the Jewish Defense Organization, which described Ahmadinejad as "the Hitler of Iran."
Eeeesh...

I'd like to know more about the Jewish residents of Iran beyond the fact that they have representation in Parliament. Do they live in camps or behind big concrete walls? Anything really.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1
« Reply #100 on: September 27, 2007, 12:32:31 pm »
Eeeesh...

I'd like to know more about the Jewish residents of Iran beyond the fact that they have representation in Parliament. Do they live in camps or behind big concrete walls? Anything really.


They will not have representation after we go in, believe that.

These groups trying to cause controversy are not jewish, christian, or muslim.  They are controlled by traitors of their religion, their country, their culture, their race (the human race):

Look at this influential local "Jewish" leader:
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=4988.msg20663#msg20663

AIPAC / JDL / Other jewish supremisist groups have nothing to do with jews and most likely are creating a huge amount of Blowback that will cause the greatest threat to Israel ever, 1,000x worse than any speech by Ahmadinejad.

These groups are a full part of the Military Industrial Complex including Carlyle (7% share owned by UAE), Halliburton (A United Arab Emirites Company), GE (British Royal Family)and all the Energy Companies (Queen Beatrice, Schultz, Buffett, Bush, Cheney, Rockefeller, Rothschild), and of course the most evil organization around...the Council on Foreign Affairs.

The Israeli bombing of a sovereign country in the area of 2 American Occupations is fricking insane, and if this keeps heating up, goodbye any remnants of liberty in this country.

Bush still refuses to answer any Israel questions and I find that more troubling than all of the NWO attempts to divert the issue to Ahmadinejad.

There is likely to be another 100 or so of these stories trying to connect Iran to 9/11, terrorism, anti-semitism.

THEY ARE ALL FALSE
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline bigron

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
  • RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012
Abizaid Comes Out Against War With Iran!!
« Reply #101 on: September 28, 2007, 08:34:05 am »
Abizaid Comes Out Against War With Iran

http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/09/abizaid-comes-o.html

General John Abizaid, the longest serving CentCom commander in history, says we can live with a nuclear Iran. "I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear...Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well." He continued: "War, in the state-to-state sense, in that part of the region would be devastating for everybody, and we should avoid it — in my mind — to every extent that we can."

Abizaid's remarks are pretty clearly meant to blunt chatter coming out of the White House on the need for war with Iran. And they're important. One of the pernicious dynamics in the rhetoric around Iran is that the Bush administration's hawkishness has merged with the Democratic candidates' cowardice ("all options are on the table," when most mean "no, I won't bomb Iran, as I'm not an idiot") to create an impression, well-expressed by Ken Baer here, that no serious experts believe we should rule out war with Iran. As Abizaid, and many others, show, that's simply not true.

Visit site to read comments :

http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/09/abizaid-comes-o.html


Offline bigron

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
  • RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012
Re: Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1
« Reply #102 on: September 28, 2007, 08:51:14 am »
Ahmadinejad steals the show in New York
 
27/09/2007 11:44:00 PM GMT
 
 "By courageously walking into the 'Lion's Den'... Ahmadinejad will become a hero in the Arab-Muslim street."

http://aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=40973


By Adam Robertson

Although President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said nothing new at this year’s UN General Assembly, his speech dominated the opening of the meeting, and attracted worldwide attention.

On Tuesday, the Iranian president addressed the UN General Assembly, where he offered some thoughts about the world and his personal philosophy. (Click here to see Ahmadinejad's speech at the UN General Assembly)

According to the BBC, Ahmadinejad said that his speech was about "prospects for a brighter and more hopeful future, and about the appearance of the sublime and beauty, compassion and generosity, justice and blossoming of all the God-given human talents and the prominence of faith in God and realisation of the promise of God".

Of course, he talked about the Iranian nuclear case, saying that it was “closed” as a political issue and that the West’s military threats and sanctions had failed to force Tehran to abandon its nuclear program, which the West alleges is aimed at building atomic bombs despite Iran‘s insistence that it’s strictly peaceful.

The Iranian president also spoke of indigenous cultures being subjected to "broad and destructive aggressions" by the big powers who wanted to plunder peoples' wealth. He said it was time for these powers “to return from the path of arrogance and obedience to Satan to the path of faith in God".

Despite the fact that it wasn’t the kind of speech that a world leader would usually give, it seems that Ahmadinejad thinks that he is mobilising global opinion and striking a chord, according the BBC.

Moreover, from that ever-present twinkle in his eyes, he certainly seems to be enjoying the spotlight, even though his visit to New York sparked a storm which began with the refusal to let him visit Ground Zero.

However, it was the invitation to address students at Columbia University on Monday that triggered heated debate. Protestors outside the university compared Ahmadinejad to Adolf Hitler. There have also been dark mutterings of the university funding being cut off. (Click here to see Ahmadinejad at Columbia University Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4)

Despite the criticism, many people wanted to listen to the Iranian leader. Tickets for the event were sold out within an hour of becoming available. Thousands of students also sat on the lawn outside to watch the address on a big screen.

There, Ahmadinejad talked about Islam, science, and the injustices in the Middle East. He also slammed the United States and Israel, and said that there are no homosexuals in Iran. 

However, Ahmadinejad’s speech had a lesser impact than that of the university president, Lee Bollinger, who introduced the Iranian leader as a dictator, and said that his Holocaust denials showed he was "brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated."

In the U.S., many think that the Iranian president had been treated unfairly by the university that had invited him onto their grounds, while in Iran, politicians and the media -- even Ahmadinejad critics -- describe Bollinger's remarks as insulting.

Others described Ahmadinejad’s visit to New York at a time of escalating tensions between Tehran and Washington over the Iranian nuclear program and the Iraq war as a triumph.

According to the Mehr News Agency, more than 200 Iranian lawmakers hailed Ahmadinejad's "historical and memorable" stay in New York, saying in a statement his "courageous" speech on Monday had made Muslims happy while angering Iran's enemies like Israel.

The head of Iran's judiciary, Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi- Shahroudi, who has in the past criticized Ahmadinejad, also said that the Iranian leader had defied hostile "plotters" to deliver his speech.

"By fearlessly and courageously walking into the 'Lion's Den' ... he is sure to become even more of a hero in the Arab-Muslim street than before," the daily Iran News wrote.



 

Offline 12Cib

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 41
Iranian University Chancellors Ask Bollinger 10 Questions
« Reply #103 on: September 28, 2007, 12:45:32 pm »

http://www.farsnews.com/English/newstext.php?nn=8606300370

 نسخه چاپي    ارسال به دوستان

Iranian University Chancellors Ask Bollinger 10 Questions

TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- Seven chancellors and presidents of Iranian universities and research centers, in a letter addressed to their counterpart in the US Colombia University, denounced Lee Bollinger's insulting words against the Iranian nation and president and invited him to provide responses for 10 questions of the Iranian academicians and intellectuals.

The following is the full text of the letter.

Mr. Lee Bollinger
Columbia University President

We, the professors and heads of universities and research institutions in Tehran , hereby announce our displeasure and protest at your impolite remarks prior to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent speech at Columbia University.

We would like to inform you that President Ahmadinejad was elected directly by the Iranian people through an enthusiastic two-round poll in which almost all of the country's political parties and groups participated. To assess the quality and nature of these elections you may refer to US news reports on the poll dated June 2005.

Your insult, in a scholarly atmosphere, to the president of a country with a population of 72 million and a recorded history of 7,000 years of civilization and culture is deeply shameful.

Your comments, filled with hate and disgust, may well have been influenced by extreme pressure from the media, but it is regrettable that media policy-makers can determine the stance a university president adopts in his speech.

Your remarks about our country included unsubstantiated accusations that were the product of guesswork as well as media propaganda. Some of your claims result from misunderstandings that can be clarified through dialogue and further research.

During his speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad answered a number of your questions and those of students. We are prepared to answer any remaining questions in a scientific, open and direct debate.

You asked the president approximately ten questions. Allow us to ask you ten of our own questions in the hope that your response will help clear the atmosphere of misunderstanding and distrust between our two countries and reveal the truth.

1- Why did the US media put you under so much pressure to prevent Mr. Ahmadinejad from delivering his speech at Columbia University? And why have American TV networks been broadcasting hours of news reports insulting our president while refusing to allow him the opportunity to respond? Is this not against the principle of freedom of speech?

2- Why, in 1953, did the US administration overthrow the Iran's national government under Dr Mohammad Mosaddegh and go on to support the Shah's dictatorship?

3- Why did the US support the blood-thirsty dictator Saddam Hussein during the 1980-88 Iraqi-imposed war on Iran, considering his reckless use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers defending their land and even against his own people?

4- Why is the US putting pressure on the government elected by the majority of Palestinians in Gaza instead of officially recognizing it? And why does it oppose Iran 's proposal to resolve the 60-year-old Palestinian issue through a general referendum?

5- Why has the US military failed to find Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden even with all its advanced equipment? How do you justify the old friendship between the Bush and Bin Laden families and their cooperation on oil deals? How can you justify the Bush administration's efforts to disrupt investigations concerning the September 11 attacks?

6- Why does the US administration support the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) despite the fact that the group has officially and openly accepted the responsibility for numerous deadly bombings and massacres in Iran and Iraq? Why does the US refuse to allow Iran 's current government to act against the MKO's main base in Iraq?

7- Was the US invasion of Iraq based on international consensus and did international institutions support it? What was the real purpose behind the invasion which has claimed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives? Where are the weapons of mass destruction that the US claimed were being stockpiled in Iraq?

8- Why do America's closest allies in the Middle East come from extremely undemocratic governments with absolutist monarchical regimes?

9- Why did the US oppose the plan for a Middle East free of unconventional weapons in the recent session of the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors despite the fact the move won the support of all members other than Israel?

10- Why is the US displeased with Iran's agreement with the IAEA and why does it openly oppose any progress in talks between Iran and the agency to resolve the nuclear issue under international law?

Finally, we would like to express our readiness to invite you and other scientific delegations to our country. A trip to Iran would allow you and your colleagues to speak directly with Iranians from all walks of life including intellectuals and university scholars. You could then assess the realities of Iranian society without media censorship before making judgments about the Iranian nation and government.

You can be assured that Iranians are very polite and hospitable toward their guests.


Offline bigron

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
  • RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012
Re: Iranian University Chancellors Ask Bollinger 10 Questions
« Reply #104 on: September 28, 2007, 01:05:22 pm »
This is really notewothy..........

Wonder if this will ever be replied ......

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Hillary Votes For Lieberman Amendment/War With Iran
« Reply #105 on: September 28, 2007, 04:04:19 pm »
Hillary Votes For Lieberman Amendment/War With Iran
by CreditBubble
Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 06:36:48 PM PDT
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/26/212150/758

Hillary voted for the Lieberman-Kyl amendment for war with Iran. I just saw her justify that vote during the debate. She used identical language to what she said when she was justifying her Iraq war vote on the floor of the senate, back in 2002. She talked about Iran supporting and supplying terrorism, threatening American interests, and being a grave threat. I mean, I am speechless. I have supported Hillary's campaign in the past, but I mean, I can't believe this. If she can't understand that war with Iran is unaccapetable, then what good is she? Even after all of the attacks against her because of her Iraq vote, she still doesn't understand. After all that has happened in Iraq, she still doesn't get it. If she isn't going to get it after all of this, then how can we trust her?
CreditBubble's diary :: ::

I used to think that Obama's criticism of Hillary over judgement was just a campaign talking point. I don't know anymore. I mean, she apparently doesn't understand that war with Iran is unacceptable. And then to use the same language she used in justifying her Iran vote, I mean, I am just speechless. Apparently after 4,000 dead soldiers, 30,000 injured soldiers, and 1 million dead Iraqis, she still doesn't get it.

How can I trust her to do the right thing? How can any of us trust her? I mean, it seems as though both she and holy joe are of the same mind over Iraq. So if she becomes president, does that mean another war??

How can we stop her, if she is in fact as dangerous as her comment and vote would have you believe? She is ahead in all of the polls. She doesn't have the money (Obama has that). She doesn't have the passion (Edwards has that). But she has all of the momentum. I mean, war with Iran? I just am speechless.

Hillary's vote on the Lieberman admendment was unacceptable   

Agree
90%   80 votes

Disagree
10%   9 votes


89 votes
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Hillary Votes For Lieberman Amendment/War With Iran
« Reply #106 on: September 28, 2007, 04:05:29 pm »
Hillary Clinton’s Iran Vote
By: Scarecrow
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/28/hillary-clintons-iran-vote/
If the American people have a major reservation about the possibility of a Hillary Clinton Presidency, I suspect it is none of the usual reasons given about what the Republicans might have on “the Clintons” or our readiness to have a woman as President.

Unlike the Republicans, the American people like Bill Clinton; and they can tell Hillary is smart, articulate and capable. That’s partly why she’s the front runner.

And they’ve no doubt observed that countries all over the world have women presidents and prime ministers, and every one of them is obviously smarter and wiser than George Bush and less reckless and duplicitous than Dick Cheney.

No, it seems more likely the reservation is about what she learned from her vote to authorize Bush and Cheney to start a war. That question was front and center in Wednesday night’s Democratic candidates’ debate. And her answer was chilling, because it confirmed everyone’s worst fears about her basic judgment.

When challenged about her Iraq authorization vote, Senator Clinton has repeatedly tried to pin the blame on George Bush — that she had a right to expect him to be honest, to use good judgment, and to exercise good faith in completing the WMD inspections and acting on the facts. In short, Hillary’s defense has been “I trusted Bush to make the right decision, but against my advice, and to my surprise, he deceived all of us and made the wrong decision.” And she has added, “if I had known then . . .” and (paraphrasing) “I would not have made the same judgment as Bush.” Not very satisfying, but she’s stuck to it.

But what about the next war? Senator Edwards framed the most obvious question: Now that we know Bush and Cheney cannot be trusted to tell the truth, or to give peaceful alternatives a chance, or to act with wisdom and due regard for consequences, why would anyone in their right minds approve a resolution that would give Bush and Cheney the idea Congress had enabled them to make any decision regarding possible war with Iran?

Wednesday’s vote on the Lieberman - Kyl resolution, condemning Iran and allowing the designation of its Revolutionary Guards as a “terrorist” entity, was a litmus test for candidates seeking the Presidency. The vote separated the wise from the foolish, and Senator Clinton voted — again — for foolish.

The post debate media spinners gave us the conventional wisdom that candidate X was positioning himself for the primary, while candidate Y was positioning herself for the general election. But the vote on the Iran resolution was not about positioning for the general election, because it was not about what a President Clinton would do, but about what Bush/Cheney might do.

Hillary Clinton expressed the Bush framing about the terrorist nature of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, but her statements were not relevant to whether it was wise or foolish to vote for the Lieberman - Kyl resolution. That resolution’s relevance is not about what Hillary Clinton would do as President, but about what it enables Bush and Cheney to do without Congressional opposition during their term, not hers.

There is no way to spin Clinton’s vote to blunt what it tells us. Her vote in favor of the resolution was reckless and foolish and exhibited exactly the same flawed judgment — if not opportunism — as her original Iraq authorization vote. Only this time, she has no excuse of claiming she didn’t know Bush’s character.

If this were a Republican candidate, I would see it as a disqualifying event. Why shouldn’t the same apply here, especially when two other Democratic candidates facing similar political pressures — Dodd and Biden — voted for “wise”?
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Hillary Votes For Lieberman Amendment/War With Iran
« Reply #107 on: September 28, 2007, 04:06:27 pm »
Hillary Clinton Votes for War Again
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/hillary-clinton-votes-for_b_66174.html
Posted September 27, 2007 | 02:54 PM (EST)


Yesterday, by a vote of 76-22, the Senate passed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment in support of military actions against Iran. This is the second such endorsement of the president by a senate majority in just three months. In July, the Lieberman amendment to "confront Iran" passed with the far stronger majority of 97-0.

The original draft of Kyl-Lieberman had asked U.S. forces to "combat, contain, and roll back" the Iranian menace within Iraq. But the words "roll back" were all too plainly a coded endorsement of hot pursuit into Iran; and the senators did not want to go quite so far. To assure a larger majority the language was accordingly trimmed and blurred to say "that it should be the policy of the United States to stop inside Iraq the violent activities and destabilizing influence of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies."

The inclusion of Hezbollah deserves some notice. It is part of a larger attempt, already apparent in the Lebanon war of 2006, to manufacture an "amalgam" of all the enemies of Israel and the United States throughout the region, and to treat them all as one enemy. Those who believe in the amalgam will come to agree that many more wars by the United States and Israel are needed to crush this enemy.

More provocative is a secondary detail of the amendment, which received less notice from the mainstream media. Kyl-Lieberman approves the listing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard of Iran as a "foreign terrorist organization." Now, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard is the largest branch of the Iranian military. By granting Vice President Cheney's wish (a distant dream in 2005) to put the Iranian guard on the U.S. terrorist list, the Senate has classified the army of Iran as an army of terrorists. The president, therefore, as he follows out the Cheney plan has all the support he requires for asserting in his next speech to an army or veterans group that Iran is a nation of terrorists.

It was said during the Vietnam War that "a dead Vietnamese is a Viet Cong." It will assuage the conscience for U.S. bombers of Iran to know that a dead Iranian is a terrorist. The Senate, by this classification, has absolved the bombers in advance.

Hillary Clinton voted in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment to press the army toward war with Iran. This was an important step, for her, and a vote as closely considered as her vote to authorize the bombing and occupation of Iraq.

Here are the senators who voted against Kyl-Lieberman:

Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Dodd (D-CT) Feingold (D-WI) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Leahy (D-VT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lugar (R-IN) McCaskill (D-MO) Sanders (I-VT) Tester (D-MT) Webb (D-VA) Wyden (D-OR)

John McCain and Barack Obama did not vote.

It is a remarkable fact that the war meditated against Iran, like the war on Iraq, is sought most keenly by a vice president and president who went further than most of their generation to avoid serving their country in Vietnam. The fact becomes the more remarkable in view of the contempt shown by both men for those who did not cheer and avoid, but opposed the Vietnam war by conscientious dissent. The same is true across the range of non-combatant neoconservative war architects and propagandists. Psychological compensation of an astonishing kind (to say no more) is at work in this display of rashness disguised as courage in the later careers of our war leaders behind the lines. For several years now, the mainstream press and media have said as little as possible about it.

Two votes against Kyl-Lieberman were issued from veterans with considerable experience and firsthand knowledge of war, Chuck Hagel and Jim Webb. If these two men were now to sharpen their dissidence, if they could make their reasons articulate and see the present as a time that calls them to the sustained work of opposition-- we might have the beginnings of a potent resistance which will never come from Harry Reid.

What of the absence of Barack Obama? In a speech in Iowa on September 12, he addressed by anticipation the matter before the Senate in Kyl-Lieberman: "We hear eerie echoes of the run-up to the war in Iraq in the way that the President and Vice President talk about Iran. They conflate Iran and al Qaeda. They issue veiled threats. They suggest that the time for diplomacy and pressure is running out when we haven't even tried direct diplomacy. Well George Bush and Dick Cheney must hear--loud and clear--from the American people and the Congress: you don't have our support, and you don't have our authorization for another war."

It is baffling that a man who spoke those words two weeks ago could not find the time or the resolve to cast his vote in a conspicuous test for authorizing war on Iran. This seems to be one more demonstration of Obama's tendency never to take a step forward without a step to the side. As for his own message about Iran, it has not been "loud and clear," but muffled, wavering, experimental.

With Hillary Clinton, we know where we stand. Yesterday she voted to bring the country a serious step closer to war against Iran. And she did so for the same reason that she voted to authorize the war on Iraq. She thinks the next war is going to happen. She hopes the worst of its short-term effects on America will have died down before the election. She suspects the media and voters will show more trust for a candidate who supported than for one who opposed the war. She wants a ponderous establishment of American troops and super-bases to remain in the Middle East for years to come. If she wins the presidency, she will inherit the command of that army and those bases, and she believes she can manage their affairs more prudently than George W. Bush.

Hillary Clinton is consistent. Every move is calculated, her actual intentions are masked, but the total drift is easy to comprehend. It is not so with Obama. How can he expect anyone to back a man who will not back himself?
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Hillary Votes For Lieberman Amendment/War With Iran
« Reply #108 on: September 28, 2007, 04:06:57 pm »
Hillary Votes Yes On Kyl-Lieberman Iran Amendment
By Greg Sargent - September 26, 2007, 12:59PM
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/09/hillary_votes_yes_on_kyllieberman_iran_amendment.php
Voting's underway on the Kyl-Lieberman Iran amendment -- and Hillary just voted Aye.

Apparently the bill's backers sought to mollify its critics by taking out some of its most incendiary language, particularly the idea that "it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies."

Webb, however, still opposes the bill because it designates the Iran guard a terrorist organization.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline xvyxx

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 63
Re: Hillary Votes For Lieberman Amendment/War With Iran
« Reply #109 on: September 28, 2007, 04:26:48 pm »
Only difference between Hillary and Bush is that you won't have to pay for the doctors to sterilize you in the FEMA camp when she is president.

Offline 12Cib

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 41
Re: Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1
« Reply #110 on: September 28, 2007, 09:17:34 pm »
I doubt Bollinger will have the courage to reply, as evidenced by his behavior at Columbia.  I'm interested in seeing how Columbia students receive this invitation. Will they actually step outside of their bubble and go to Iran to see the world for themselves? Or will they continue to leave their blinders on and believe in the ridiculous propaganda served up to them daily, by their so called educators? I think I will try to follow through and contact some of them to see where they really stand.

The article below shows that the compartmentalized/blackmailed U.S. establishment really has no idea what they are doing. To even think about attacking Iran, is lunacy. The repercussions are hard to imagine. But when Turkey and Pakistan are on such friendly terms with Iran, doing so would definitely escalate into a regional/global conflict very quickly. The NWO globalists are truly going for broke as they are getting walloped in the infowar. Only fear is on their side now. Like Alex has stated repeatedly, it's time to redouble our efforts at exposing their countless crimes.

http://www.farsnews.com/English/newstext.php?nn=8607060345

  Turkey Praises Ahmadinejad's Address at US Columbia University

TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's remarks at the US Columbia University underlined the righteousness and truthfulness of the Islamic Republic's stances.

Erdogan made the remarks in a meeting with Iranian president on Wednesday on the sidelines of the 62nd annual meeting of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, a statement released by the Presidential Press Office said.

During the meeting, Erdogan stressed his pleasure in Tehran-Ankara developing relations, and further reiterated the need for the two countries to implement previous agreements and deepen the existing relations.

"The high economic potentials of Iran and Turkey must be utilized in a desirable manner, " the Turkish premier pointed out.

For his part, the Iranian president said that his presence at the different think-thanks and scientific bodies and circles during his visit to the US proved the righteous stances and the truthful words of the Iranian nation.

He said addressees always have an ear for the right words due to their pure and clean nature, no matter where they are and where they live.




Offline galiana

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Je pense, donc je suis.
Re: Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1
« Reply #111 on: September 28, 2007, 09:48:33 pm »
I'd love to go to Iran. It's very expensive, though, and highly impractical. You have to apply for a visa through Switzerland and go with a government approved tour, or not at all. Maybe next year, assuming we don't bomb them.

Offline 12Cib

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 41
Questions about Iranian Weapons in Iraq
« Reply #112 on: September 28, 2007, 10:26:02 pm »

http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/02/questions_about_iranian_weapon.php#more

Excerpt from Article:

..Defense Department officials reportedly provided little proof for their claims of high-level involvement by the Iranian government, and the next day General Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chief of staff, appeared to contradict them. Commenting on the captured weaponry, Pace conceded that the weapons “[do] not translate to that the Iranian government per se, for sure, is directly involved in doing this.” Yesterday President Bush sided with General Pace, confirming that “we don’t…know whether the head leaders of Iran ordered the Quds force to do what they did.”

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
« Reply #113 on: September 29, 2007, 01:06:17 am »
Attack on Iran Said To Be Imminent
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/280907_b_attack.htm
BENNY AVNI New York Sun Friday, September 28, 2007


UNITED NATIONS — In a sign that U.N. Security Council-based diplomacy is losing steam, a number of sources are reporting that a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities may be imminent. France and America also are pushing for tighter economic sanctions against Tehran, without U.N. approval. Yesterday's edition of Le Canard Enchaîné, a French weekly known for its investigative journalism, reported details of an alleged Israeli-American plan to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. The frontpage headline read: "A report sent to the Elysée — Putin tells Tehran: They're going to bomb you!" The Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, also expressed concerns to reporters in New York that an attack on Iran might be imminent. Like most stories in the French paper, the article was based on unnamed sources who said that in order to reduce casualties, the attack against Iran is planned for October 15, the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. Israel would bomb the first targets while America would orchestrate a second wave of strikes, the report said. However, the French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, who recently spoke of preparing for war with Iran, berated reporters yesterday, telling them that he had said war is the "worst option." Instead, he is now calling for "diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy." As foreign ministers representing the five permanent members of the Security Council — China, Russia, France, Britain, and America — and Germany plan to sit down Friday for a long-planned meeting to discuss ideas for addressing Iran's refusal to end uranium enrichment, Mr. Kouchner told reporters that China and Russia are likely to delay any significant decision until at least December.

"It would be very difficult to convince the Russians and the Chinese before" December, he said. A Russian diplomat told The New York Sun on Monday that Moscow would call on the council to await the conclusion of a new round of diplomacy conducted by the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei. At a breakfast with reporters yesterday, Mr. Kouchner said he had "spent hours" with the Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, trying to convince him to approve council sanctions against Iran. Russia, Mr. Kouchner said, is attempting to regain its top world status, while "we treat them, they told me, like little adolescents." Meanwhile, a former American ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, indicated yesterday that President Sarkozy of France may be a more reliable ally on Iran than Prime Minister Brown of Britain. "It's not at all clear where Brown is at," Mr. Bolton told the Sun. "The question is, ‘Will Britain follow in the footsteps of France?'" Either way, Mr. Bolton said he did not invest too much hope in Security Council diplomacy. Some American diplomats are saying the next phase of diplomacy with Iran may involve a separate track of sanctions that would be imposed without Security Council approval. Mr. Kouchner said yesterday that the French government is trying to lean on companies like the oil giant Total to end ties with Iran. Between 2005 and 2006, he said, French commerce with Iran was cut in half.

But an unnamed German government official told Reuters yesterday, "Unlike the United States and the French, the German government is not ready to go outside the U.N. for sanctions." The official expressed doubts that Europe could reach a consensus on such sanctions. German companies such as Siemens, BASF, Mercedes, and Volkswagen maintain strong business ties with Iran. In 2006, such companies reportedly exported goods worth $5.7 billion to Iran, up from $5 billion in 2004. In Vienna, Mr. ElBaradei is preparing a report that is not expected to be ready before December. In a speech to the U.N. General Assembly earlier this week, President Ahmadinejad of Iran said the "nuclear issue of Iran is now closed," and he said Tehran would stop dealing with the Security Council and would negotiate only with the IAEA. Mr. ElBaradei recently reached an agreement with Iran that allows it to report on outstanding nuclear issues over a long period of time. The Iranians, nonetheless, are "very, very, very firm that they don't want to stop enrichment," Mr. Kouchner said yesterday. Mr. ElBaradei, who is charged with reporting on technical nuclear issues, was berated by Secretary of State Rice, who said the Tehran accords amounted to conducting private diplomacy. Before he became U.N. ambassador, Mr. Bolton sought to mount a campaign to unseat Mr. ElBaradei. A former secretary of state, Colin Powell, "was never enthusiastic about it," Mr. Bolton said yesterday. "When Rice became secretary of state, the winds came out of the sails" of the campaign to unseat the IAEA director. "Stopping him would have required a lot of effort," Mr. Bolton said, but he added that Mr. ElBaradei's current behavior on Iran "proves that it was worthwhile."
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
« Reply #114 on: September 29, 2007, 05:50:08 am »
Countdown: Jim Webb on Lieberman/Kyl, Rush Limbaugh and the Spanish Downing Street Revelations
By: Nicole Belle @ 7:08 PM - PDT   
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/28/countdown-jim-webb-on-liebermankyl-rush-limbaugh-and-the-spanish-downing-street-revelations/





It’s dizzying to try to keep up with all the plates that the Right Wing are spinning. On Thursday’s Countdown, Keith Olbermann and Sen. Jim Webb try to put it all in perspective.

(On the Spanish “Downing Street” memos)  There’s no real surprise there. If you look back at where the situation was in ‘02, I and General Tony Zinni and other people were saying that Iraq probably would have been sixth highest in terms of the threats to the United States. In fact, I wrote a piece in the Washington Post five years ago this month, basically saying “Do you really want to be in Iraq for the next 30 years?” and that these people have no exit strategy because they don’t intend to leave.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline bigron

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
  • RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012
Re: Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1
« Reply #115 on: September 29, 2007, 08:37:38 am »
The Man Behind the Iran Curtain
 
by Khody Akhavi
http://www.antiwar.com/ips/akhavi.php?articleid=11688

He called for more "research" into the unequivocal facts of the Holocaust, said Iranian women were among the freest in the world, and declared that homosexuality did not exist in his country.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad courts controversy wherever he goes, and his visit to New York this week was no exception. Addressing the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, Iran's president said he considered the dispute over his country's nuclear program"closed." Even before his arrival, he had asked – and was denied – permission to lay a wreath at the site of the Sep. 11, 2001 attacks in New York.

But it was Ahmadinejad's appearance Monday at Columbia University that generated the most press buzz and protests. In a chiding introduction that has since generated sharply divided reactions, university President Lee Bollinger described the Iranian leader as "exhibiting all the signs of a cruel and petty dictator" and condemned his denial of the Holocaust as "either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated."

Ahmadinejad came out swinging, calling Bollinger's words "insults" and proceeded to deliver a speech to the university's faculty and students that meandered between a religious sermon and a treatise on science. He repeated provocative statements that at times bordered on the absurd. He remained evasive on questions that ranged from human rights abuses in Iran to his call for Israel to be "wiped from the pages of history", often responding to them with opaque rhetorical questions.

When asked for a one-word answer – "yes or no" – as to whether his government desired the "destruction of Israel as a Jewish state", Ahmadinejad responded: "And then you want the answer the way you want to hear it. Well, this isn't really a free flow of information... I'm asking you, is the Palestinian issue not an international issue of prominence or not? Please tell me, yes or no." His answer received laughter and applause.

Ahmadinejad's visit comes at a time of heightened tensions between the US and Iran, with the George W. Bush administration pushing the U.N. Security Council for a third round of economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic for its refusal to shut down its nuclear program Analysts suggest that the Iranian leader's meandering monologues and fiery rebuttals are all part of a contest of rhetorical muscle, a classic game of political theater.

"It's a last bid to divide the West," said Michael Hirsch, a senior editor at Newsweek magazine, during a forum Monday at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.

He added: "I think it's generally a good idea when you're inviting people to your university not to tell them upon arrival that they're not welcome, because then you look crazier than Ahmadinejad."

Ahmadinejad has used the Khomeinist inspired rhetoric of the Islamic Revolution to his advantage, playing a widely despised villain in the Western media while pandering to his domestic base and projecting an air of defiance towards US power.

But experts say that the Iranian leader has also drawn heavy domestic criticism for his mismanagement of the Iranian economy, as well as his brash remarks about the Holocaust, comments which, in the long term, threaten to derail any possible improvement in US-Iranian relations.

"I was astonished when I was [in Iran]. I actually had more on-the-record conversations criticizing Ahmadinejad with Iranian politicians and businessmen than I have here in Washington criticizing Bush," said Hirsch.

In one interview with an Iranian newspaper editor, Hirsch said that the editor remarked, "You know, one of the things we say around here is that Bush is your Ahmadinejad."

"They're similar personalities, both sort of pandering to their conservative religious political base, crudely spoken, not especially masters of their native languages," said Hirsch.

The rhetoric portends an ominous future for the tense standoff between Israel and Iran, which analysts believe is a geo-strategic conflict that is largely being couched in ideological terms.

While it appears the Iranian government has made an explicit effort to bring Israel into the nuclear issue, Ahmadinejad's comments about the Holocaust have angered many inside Iranian elite foreign policy circles because they distract from the more pressing issues of the country's security.

"[Ahmadinejad] actually crossed an invisible red line that exists inside Iran's own internal politics," said Trita Parsi, an Iran specialist and head of the Washington-based National Iranian American Council.

"Criticizing Israel was never something the Iranians were sensitive about – they're quite thick-skinned about to be frank – but talking about the Holocaust was no longer about Israel, and this was something about the entire Jewish experience," he said. "[Ahmadinejad] caused a tremendous amount of anger."

It appears that Israeli politicians are also using the rhetoric to their advantage.

"Netanyahu, he has a metaphor. It's 1938, and Iran is Germany, and he goes on to imply that Ahmadinejad is Hitler," said Parsi, referring to the former Israeli prime minister and head of the right-wing Likud bloc in Israel's Knesset.

"If Iran is Germany and Ahmadinejad is Hitler, who in his or her right mind wants to play the part of Neville Chamberlain?"

It remains to be seen what impact Ahmadinejad's visit will have on the more crucial issues at hand. So far, Iran's attempts to foment division among the key members of the UN Security Council appear to be working.

Six nations – Russia, China, Britain, France, Germany and the United States – agreed Friday to delay until November a new resolution that would toughen sanctions against Iran, waiting to see if Tehran cooperates with UN nuclear chief Mohamed ElBaradei and answers outstanding questions about its disputed nuclear program

To more discerning critics, Ahmadinejad's US visit only adds more smoke and mirrors to an already tangled political situation in the Middle East, one which the US cannot afford to exacerbate further by militarily confronting Iran.

"The overwhelming tide of opinion that Bush is hearing from the Pentagon is that this would be foolhardy and extreme, and result in many repercussions in Iraq," said Hirsch. "Bush knows that Iraq is his legacy, and that has sucked all the oxygen out of the room."

(Inter Press Service)
 

Offline bigron

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
  • RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012
Re: Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1
« Reply #116 on: September 29, 2007, 08:53:02 am »
US Politicians, Not Ahmadinejad, Have Blood on Their Hands
 
by Charley Reese
http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=11686

Ernest Hemingway explained the problem many years ago. The first thing politicians do to hide their mismanagement, he said, is inflate the currency; the second thing they do is go to war.

Our currency has been inflated and we are at war. The demonization of the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which you saw take place in New York City and on American television, is just the first step in preparing the country for a third war.

The president of Columbia, Lee Bollinger, disgraced himself. Instead of introducing his invited guest speaker, he launched a tirade of abuse and insults. Obviously, he was in hot water with some of Columbia's big donors for inviting Ahmadinejad and chose that petty, shabby way of trying to ingratiate himself to the school's angry sugar daddies. All Bollinger succeeded in doing was making Ahmadinejad look good in comparison with him.

Whether you agree with Iran's president or not, he's the wrong guy to try to demonize. First of all, he is not a dictator. He is an elected president with very little power. He has to get past the legislature, and the real power rests with the senior cleric, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Khamenei controls foreign policy and is commander in chief of all of Iran's armed forces. The legislature rejected nearly all of Ahmadinejad's recommendations for ministers. When he tried to allow women to attend soccer games, the clerics overruled him.

The claims that Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust and has called for the destruction of Israel are false. He has called for regime change, which is something American politicians do every time they find a country whose policies they disagree with. Regime change is a change of government, not genocide. As for the Holocaust, he said it raised two questions: Why put people in prison who question details of the official version, which is what several European countries do. Why should the Palestinians be made to pay for it? Both are good questions.

How American politicians can call Iran a dangerous country and claim that it poses a threat to the U.S. is a mystery. On second thought, it is not a mystery. It just tells you that the politicians think you and I are so stupid that we will fall for the exact same parade of lies and exaggerations that was used to justify the war against Iraq.

Think for yourself. Iran has no nuclear weapons, and its military is designed for defense. It has no offensive capability – no air force, no navy to speak of. Israel, on the other hand, is usually ranked as the fifth most powerful military state on the planet. It has more than 200 nuclear weapons and a superb air force.

Iran has said it has no desire to attack Israel or any other country. It has said its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes and that it has no desire for a nuclear weapon. The head cleric has issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons. And there is not one shred of evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon.

Just remember the lies told to you before Iraq: that Saddam Hussein was pursuing a nuclear weapon; that he had enormous stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. The only thing he really had was oil. That's why we went to war, and that's why the administration wants to go to war with Iran.

I've heard some politicians say that Ahmadinejad has "blood on his hands." Well, our $40 billion worth of intelligence cannot even determine if he was involved in the taking of the American embassy back in 1979. As for blood, American politicians have far more Iranian blood on their hands. We overthrew Iran's democratic government and installed the Shah and his secret police. We sided with and assisted Saddam Hussein when he invaded Iran. Tens of thousands of Iranians are dead because of America's foreign policy.

We truly have a corrupt and incompetent government in Washington.

 

Offline bigron

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
  • RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012
Re: Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1
« Reply #117 on: September 29, 2007, 08:56:41 am »
From the Los Angeles Times
http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/latimesC18.html

The Bollinger/Ahmadinejad farce!

If the Columbia University president were to introduce Bush the way he did the Iranian president, that would be an act of free-speech bravery.
Rosa Brooks

September 28, 2007

Imagine the scene: As angry protesters march outside, a nation's unpopular president prepares to address students and faculty at a prestigious university. Introducing the president, the head of the university is bluntly critical of his guest speaker: "You, quite simply, [are] ridiculous. You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated. . . . I doubt you will have the intellectual courage to answer [our] questions . . . I do expect you to exhibit the fanatical mind-set that characterizes so much of what you say and do. . . . Your preposterous and belligerent statements . . . led to your party's defeat in the [last] elections."

Unfazed, the president rises to begin his speech. His sometimes bizarre remarks generate hoots of derision. But he plows on civilly, though he ducks and weaves when faced with critical questions from the audience.

When the clock runs out, many are dissatisfied with his answers. But everyone applauds the courageous head of the university, who wasn't afraid to speak truth to power, and everyone praises the student protesters, who exemplified the democratic values of dissent and free expression.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if something like that could happen in our country?

No, no, I mean really happen in our country. Tuesday's farce in New York at Columbia University, starring Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the Unpopular Presidential Guest and Columbia President Lee C. Bollinger as The Man Who Spoke Truth to Power, doesn't count because it was just that: a farce.

Ahmadinejad was playing to global public opinion, and though he lost some PR points for incoherence and general bizarreness of message ("In Iran, we don't have homosexuals"), he gained some for coming off as a bit more mature than his prissy, infantile host. ("In Iran, when you invite a guest, you respect them," Ahmadinejad observed dryly.)

Bollinger, meanwhile, was playing to a different audience. After taking a beating for giving Ahmadinejad a forum, he was eager to show the media, alumni, concerned Jewish organizations and a raft of bellicose neoconservative pundits that he was no terrorist-loving appeaser of Holocaust deniers.

In a narrow sense, both Ahmadinejad and Bollinger achieved their goals. Ahmadinejad showed that he could be dignified in the face of crass American bullies, which will play well abroad -- and may even buttress his dwindling prestige in Iran. And Bollinger showed that he can be a crass American bully, which, in our current political climate, is what passes for "courage."

Bollinger's tactics went down well with the New York media, anyway: The New York Sun rhapsodized about a "Teaching Moment," while the New York Times expressed the pious hope that "what Americans and Iranians will remember is that image of professors and students, in a true democratic forum." And Bollinger seemed quite pleased with his own performance. The Bollinger-Ahmadinejad Show was "free speech at its best," Bollinger modestly explained to reporters.

Sorry, no. "Free speech at its best" is when someone really does speak truth to power, and power stops blathering long enough to engage with inconvenient ideas. If an Iranian professor, inside Iran, had said what Bollinger said to Ahmadinejad, that would have been brave.

Or -- stay with me here -- if Bollinger had invited President Bush to Columbia and made those same unvarnished remarks to him, and Bush had toughed it out and struggled to answer half a dozen unfiltered, critical questions from an audience not made up of his handpicked supporters . . . . Well, that too would have been free speech at its best.

Unfortunately, that's not the kind of thing you're likely to see in America.

It's odd, because Bush -- like Ahmadinejad -- makes plenty of statements that, to paraphrase the eloquent Mr. Bollinger, could be characterized as ridiculous, provocative, uneducated and fanatical. (Take Bush's repeated suggestion of a link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks, for instance.) And as in the case of Ahmadinejad, some of Bush's preposterous and belligerent statements contributed to the GOP's defeat in the last elections.

But so what? Here in the land of free speech, elites -- including those at universities -- too often collude to keep our own president in his safe little bubble. (Those who forget to pretend that the emperor is fully dressed, such as Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents Assn. dinner or Jimmy Carter at Coretta Scott King's funeral, are instantly chastised for being "inappropriate.")

This week, a global audience saw Iran's "petty and cruel dictator," as Bollinger called him, courteously parrying questions from hostile students -- something viewers won't see our democratically elected president doing.

So fine, let's congratulate ourselves for showing Iran just how many freedoms we have in America. But when we get done congratulating ourselves on our fancy freedoms, let's figure out why we can't be bothered to put them to use.




Offline bigron

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
  • RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012
Re: Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1
« Reply #118 on: September 29, 2007, 12:24:02 pm »
Lost In Translation: Ahmadinejad And The Media

By Ali Quli Qarai
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18471.htm

09/28/07 "ICH" -- - First I want to make some remarks about that now world-famous statement of President Ahmadinejad at Columbia: “We do not have homosexuals in Iran of the kind you have in your country.” The American media conveniently ignored the second, and crucial, part of his sentence as something redundant.

Obviously he was not saying, We don’t have any homosexuals whatsoever in Iran—something nobody in the world would believe, not even in Iran. And by implication, he was not telling his audience, I am a plain liar! —something which his audience at Columbia and the American media construed him to be saying.

What he was saying is that homosexuality in the US and homosexuality in Iran are issues which are as far apart from one another as two cultural universes possibly can be. They are so dissimilar that any attempt to relate them and bring them under a common caption would be misleading. “Homosexuality is not an issue in Iran as it is in present-day American society.” This was, apparently what was saying in polite terms.

Homosexuality in the US is a omnipresent social and political issue which crops up in almost every discourse and debate pertaining to American society and politics. So much so that I think it was a major issue, if not the deciding factor, in the last two presidential elections which paved Bush’s way to the White House and saddled the Democrats with defeat, because a large so-called conservative section of the American public (the red states) felt wary of the pro-gay liberalism of the Democratic Party.

By contrast, homosexuality is a non-issue in Iran and is considered an uncommon perversion (except as an occasional topic of jokes about a certain town). Prom the viewpoint of penal law, too, it is does not receive much attention as the requirements for a sentence (four eye-witnesses, who have actually seen the details of the act) are so astringent as to make punishment almost impossible. (It would be interesting to know how many have been accused of it during the last two decades)

By contrast adultery and homosexuality are legalized forms of behaviour in most of Europe and America, and regarded not as criminal acts but as perfectly acceptable forms of sexual behaviour and as legitimate natural human rights which need to be taught even to all Asian and African societies as well.

There was also a subtle hint in his remark that he wanted to move on from this topic to more serious and relevant matters, a point which would be obvious to anyone conversant with Persian language and culture (like his another hint concerning the disgraceful conduct of Columbia president, when, while formally inviting Columbia academics to Iran, he added that “You can rest assured that we will treat you in Iran with hundred percent respect.”

Iranians, being linguistically a very sophisticated people, speak a lot in hints which are invisible to outsiders. Americans in comparison tend to be straightforward and often as primitive.

(In general the Persians, like other civilized societies, have developed the art of making and responding to harsh remarks in soft and friendly words. Americans, as Prof. Bollinger proved, have still much to learn from civilized nations concerning the civilities of civilized hostility.)

Mr Bollinger’s hostility towards President Ahmadinejad had obviously been fed by devious translations and interpretations of his earlier—also world-famous—remarks about Israel and the Holocaust. As if, as one commentator has remarked, the professor had been watching only CNN and Fox News.

· Unfortunately for more than an year these remarks have given a ready-made excuse to his critics to demonize him and attack Iran’s foreign policies. Although he has made some attempts (unjustifiably belated, I think, and not quite adequate) to clarify himself, we who hear these remarks have also an intellectual duty to ourselves and others to see exactly what he exactly meant.

It is a basic linguistic principle of civilized discourse that so long as there is an acceptable and upright interpretation for someone’s remark, it should not be given a devious meaning. Moreover, as one of my teachers often says, it is easy to reject and denounce the statements of others, but the worthy task of every intelligent seeker is to try to understand people who hold different opinions. This is particular necessary when such statements originate in a different linguistic and cultural domain.

When Ahmadinejad repeated Ayatullah Khomeini’s words that “Israel baayad az bayn beravad,” (which literally means that Israel should cease to exist), what is critically important for understanding is to see how Iranian people understand these words of their president. I don’t think any mature Iranian with some awareness of regional politics has ever thought that the late Leader of Iran, or the present president of the country, were advocating some kind of military objectives against Israel. By citing the example of the Soviet Union and the Apartheid regime in South Africa Ahmadinejad, too, has clarified what he meant by ‘Israel ceasing to exist.’ By the rules of civilized discourse, every speaker’s clarification concerning what he means is authoritative as he is entitled, before all others, to state and clarify what he means by his statements. In this case, Ahmadinejad has also clarified as to how he thinks that my happen: a general referendum in undivided Palestine with the participation of its Arab, Jewish and Christian population.

As for his statement that the Holocaust in a myth, we all know that the word “myth” has several meanings in the dictionary. One of its meanings is “A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology” (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language). Thus a myth is not something necessarily untrue and Ahmadinejad has not denied outright that the Holocaust did occur, although he seems to have—what he considers to be legitimate—doubts about its exact extent, doubts which are prone to be strengthened, rightly or otherwise, by attempts to persecute or prosecute scholars whose research leads them to conclusions different from main-current historiography. What he basically appears to question is that the Holocaust should be made an ideological tool for the pursuit of unfair and inhuman objectives—something which most of us acknowledge has happened in the case of Palestine. Why should the people of Palestine be made to pay the price for the guilt and failings of Europe? He asks. I think that is a legitimate question.

The savants of the media are free to interpret Ahmadinejad’s statement with the purpose of demonizing him and excoriating Iran, but there are better and alternate paths for those who strive for understanding and peace between nations, and to an objective like this should institutions like universities, including Columbia, contribute.

I hope that Mr Bollinger will advance a courageous apology to Mr Ahmadinejad and take advantage of his standing invitation for continuing the exchange of ideas with academic circles in Iran. Iranians generally are a large hearted people, like most Americans, and I hope the bitterness which has arisen from the unfortunate event of the past week will soon be forgotten with the sincere efforts of well-meaning intellectuals and officials on both sides. I cannot think of any other way in which good will between these nations as well as the good repute of an outstanding institution of higher learning such as Columbia can be salvaged.

Ali Quli Qarai is an Iranian scholar. He has published several books, including a translation of the Quran. He can be reached at [email protected]


Offline bigron

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
  • RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012
Democrats Were Charged To End A War, Not Start One
« Reply #119 on: September 29, 2007, 12:34:03 pm »
Democrats Were Charged To End A War, Not Start One

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18474.htm

By Mike Gravel

09/28/07 "ICH" -- - -Hillary Clinton was either misinformed or economical with the truth in Wednesday night’s debate when she responded to my challenge to her by saying the Senate’s resolution earlier in the day on Iran was designed to permit economic sanctions against individual members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.

She and her staff should know the United Nations Security Council on March 24 already slapped economic sanctions on individual Guard Members. Like the Red Army in China, Iran allows Guard commanders to own and run private companies. Security Council Resolution 1747, which the United States voted for, froze financial assets held outside Iran on the seven military commanders, including General Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr and six other admirals and generals.

I know of no law dictating the State Department must first designate individuals or groups as terrorists before sanctions can be imposed on them. Dozens of countries have been under U.S. unilateral sanctions that are not designated as terrorist. The U.S. first imposed sanctions on Iran in 1979 over the hostages, not terrorism. The only possible purpose of the Senate resolution asking the State Department to designate the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization is to set it up for military attack in George Bush’s war on terror.

As Virginia senator Jim Webb valiantly said in the Senate, the United States has never before designated the military services of a sovereign state a terrorist group. Indeed, though there is international dispute over the definition of terrorism, there is little disagreement on the legal point that terrorists are non-state actors who target civilians, i.e., never members of a government. Governments can be guilty of war crimes, but not terrorism. And the resolution talks about attacks on American troops, not civilians.

The hypocrisy of Hillary and the 75 other senators who called for more unilateral sanctions on Iran, was exposed Monday by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier who said, according to Spiegel Magazine, that American companies are violating existing U.S. sanctions by surreptitiously doing business with Iran through front companies in Dubai.

Joe Lieberman wrote the resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq that was passed with Democratic support on October 11, 2002. Lieberman’s new resolution setting up a Bush-Cheney invasion of Iran passed by 76 to 22 with Democratic backing on September 26, 2007. These are two dates that will live in infamy in the 21st century. Led by Senator Clinton, it was another sad day for the Senate and for Senate Democrats, who were elected to the majority in November in order to end a war, not start a new one.

Mike Gravel is a former US Senator from Alaska and is currently running for the Democratic Nomination for President.