(Photo entitled "Best depiction of today's protest in Tehran" posted by brl85 over Twitter)
Has there ever been a more tone-deaf speech? As there world sat enthralled with the outpouring of defiance and dissent throughout Iran, here's what Benjamin Netanyahu had to say:
The Iranian threat still is before us in full force, as it became quite clear yesterday. The greatest danger to Israel, to the Middle East, and to all of humanity, is the encounter between extremist Islam and nuclear weapons. I discussed this with President Obama on my visit to Washington, and will be discussing it next week on my visit with European leaders. I have been working tirelessly for many years to form an international front against Iran arming itself with nuclear armaments.
You would think that he might at least try to pander to the international sympathy for Iran's pro-democracy activists, but as Akiva Eldar rightly pointed out the speech was "a patriarchal, colonialist address in the best neoconservative tradition." The problem for Netanayahu is that outside of Bar Ilan University and the right-wing/settler bubble his government exists in, the neocon tradition has lost all credibility.
Even assuming that Ahmadinejad emerges from the current crisis with his presidency intact, the current protests in Iran have made it impossible from this point on to paint Iran as a monolithic country hell bent on destroying Israel. The great irony of the Iranian election is that an apparently repressive anti-democratic effort to fix the results has revealed the amazingly vibrant Iranian civil society. The world is watching democracy in action. The protests have may not have only fatally crippled the legitimacy the of the Ahmadinejad government, but have also destroyed the carefully crafted neocon image of the country as the center spoke of the axis of evil.
Today the world is standing with the people of Iran, tomorrow they are not going to want to turn around and attack them.
Hey guys. Please take action against Canada's academic censorship of discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Of course Iran can be accurately portrayed as committed to Israel's demise, especially if the ruling theocracy does not act seriously (beyond just vague words) to investigate alleged vote tampering. It must be an international embarrassment to them, that the PA could hold a more reputable election while under occupation than the Iranian state could while free and entirely unemcumbered. Ahmenidijad or individuals or groups acting on his perceived behalf did him an enormous disservice. The contrast between Israel's election and the Iranian was stark. In Israel the votes weren't contested, but angrily dissenting parties ACCEPTED the accurate count and orderly formation of coalition government, and without over-riding theocratic oversight. If the theocracy ends at demanding a democratic count, perhaps even utterly losing patience with Ahmenidijad and throwing him out, then the conclusion would be that there is prospect of democracy, dialog, compromise. It is a very important time. Ahmenijidad should not get cocky, that anything goes and noone will object.
Look at the size of that demonstration.
Bullseye, Adam, to within a yoctometer.
Richard you need to make an distinction. Being committed to "Israel's demise" is not the same thing as threatening to attack someone. I, for one, was committed to the demise of Apartheid South Africa and the Soviet Union, but I never committed an act of violence against them. Should I have protected them when the they started to fall? Do you really think Muslims have an obligation to help maintain Israel as a Jewish state? Er, no. As a Christian, I can tell you I absolutely have no obligation to do that either. But I am perfectly willing to protect the the citizens of Israel from acts of agression…just as I would protect the People of Palestine, Egypt, L:ebanon from acts of aggression….
It's a thing of beauty.
Well spoken.
When you say IRAN is committed to Israel's demise, who do you mean exactly? All those people in the picture? Witty, how can you sit there and type that garbage with a straight face? Israel is the country with the nukes and the constant wars and military operations. Israel is the country holding an entire hostile population captive. Etc. etc. Yet, you sit there and keep pushing this fucking lie that the WHOLE of Iran wants to "kill" Israel and 'the Jews'? Shut the fuck up.
These protest smell like CIA black ops. Congress gave the Shadow Warriors $400 Million dollars to play "regime change" in Iran not too long ago. Who is to say that the intel community isn't currently playing their "color revolution" game in Iran? Who is organizing these protests, how is the information being disseminated? Social Networking is a wonderful message multiplier when you control the message. Call this one the "green revolution", 1953 redux.
The Neocons are simply going to spin this as: "This demonstration proves that a theocracy is holding the Iranian people hostage. We can kill two birds with one stone by bombing their nukes: regime de-stabilization and the end of a theocratic Bomb. Who can possibly object? Why even the Left agrees on the need for regime change in Iran.” But read this: Wishful thinking from Teheran …"Iran isn't Tehran"…'Even when I asked Mousavi supporters if their man could really carry more than capital, their responses were filled with an Obamasque provisional optimism – "Yes we can", "I hope so", "If you vote." So the question occupying the international media, "How did Mousavi lose?" seems to be less a problem of the Iranian election commission and more a matter of bad perception rooted in the stubborn refusal to understand the role of religion in Iran.' http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/...
In other words, Western left-liberal hipsters spinning liberal demonstrations in Iran as the equivalent of the will of the Iranian people doesn't mean there is a liberal revolution brewing in Iran. Iran will only open up when it can afford to, meaning only when Jewish Zionist, liberal imperialist, and oil-imperialist forces are safely in check and there is no longer a danger of invasion. Hipster Western left-liberals and imperialists simply have no tolerance and understanding of, nor appreciation for, religious self-determination — unless they happen to be Zionists, too. And then religious self-determination is a "Jews only" privilege.
Netanyahoo's problem, indeed Israel's problem, is that in the next 10-20 years it will no longer be the strongest power in the middle east. It will likely be displaced by Iran. That is a catastrophe for them and it does not matter one whit who rules Iran. If tomorrow the results of the election were reversed and Musavi declared the victor, he is almost certain to carry on with enrichment, assistance to Hamas and Hizbullah. He will also enjoy unassailable international legitimacy. It will not help Bibi much if women in Iran can let their hair down. Far preferable that AN stay in power as a perceived usurper. And BTW, AN may very well enjoy much more popular support than you think.
I think there is a more subtle distinction: Being committed to the passing of the Zionist regime in Israel in a fashion not unlike the passing of the USSR is even less the same thing as threatening to attack someone. BTW, when will the MSM in the USA or Europe start covering the genocide of whites in S Africa and Zimbawhae (sic)? It's been going on since the earlier 1990's. If these white farmers were jews, wouldn't we have their murder, rape, etc tossed in our face every day, instead of being buried in stats comparing crime rates in countries around the world? Why do we have to go to David Duke to even have anyone look at it? Where are the white liberals on this issue? You know, the ones who pressured the apartheid S African government of yore? And, why do we never hear of S Africa's volunteer booting out its own nuclear weapons as a model for Israel? Just asking.
Be nice. Witty is just another American Jew living fine thank you, at the protected expense of the goy. That's the way it should it be, no?
Boston.com posts "big pictures" of Iran. Takes some time to load. Great shots. Many are shots you've already seen but these are the originals before being compressed and downsized. http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/06/irans_di...
I have to say, others have been smelling the same. This election result (if you accept it as "fixed") can be looked at as a fraudulent manipulation of the results in order to disenfranchise the people of the man they truly elected to be their president, or it can be looked at as the Iranian government stopping a US-backed "soft coup" before it started. Moon of Alabama "connected some dots", though personally I feel Bernhard was reaching on a few of them, but I guess that's the point of a post like that, right? The bottom line is, whatever you want to believe, you have to take the sources somewhat at face value, as we all know. It's hard to make sense of any of it. The only incontrovertible truth we can all agree on at this point is that the Iranian people got played.
Witty, if you are looking for an explanation and understanding of why so many people are viscerally offended by liberal internationalist Jewish Zionists such as yourself, you might look to the fact that you are adamant about religious self-determination for the Jewish people, yet simultaneously hostile to religious self-determination for others — the Islamic people of Iran, for example. Your double standards smack of Jewish conceit and supremacism. In fact, any pro-Zionist that is simultaneously hostile to Islamic self-determination is likely a Jewish supremacist of one sort or another.
The truth is what the media-types tell us it is. If I listen long enough, even I will believe that the Jewish community has always been against the U.S. backing of Israel, and that most Jews are bristling with anger and resentment at the Christians who got us into this mess!
It's not just religious self-determination, it's ethnic, national and pretty much any self-determination for other groups, especially if the group is a host to Jews.
well. lester and shiachat on one side, liberals, neocons, and libertarians on the other. I don't buy into this fraudulent election twitter revolution thing at all. not ONE solitary bit. Well, one side is going to be awfully embarassed in the coming days and weeks. http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic...
Just for the record, as an American and not a Christian, I am NOT willing to defend all acts of aggression. I am not the worlds policeman nor am I prepared to decide what is aggression and what is self defense. As we can see by history the difference between self defense and aggression often depends on which side you were on.
http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2009/06/how_socially...
Strahl, your hostility is crossing the line again. 'Shut the fuck up' has no place on this or any other serious venue for dialogue. You could have made your point very, very clear without it.
America is not a 'host' for Jews. Americans who are Jewish are Americans.
Good evening Ladies and gentlemen. It is indeed inspiring to see the masses out and about. Not here mind you, but in Iran. Unfortunately, I do not have more time to chat. Everyone have the pleasantest of evenings.
Sir Jack Gurney, are you daft? The Terror Free Tomorrow foundation did an opinion poll prior to the election. Key findings: a) Ahemadinejad led Moussavi by a margin of 2.4:1 b) Among Azeris Ahmedinajad led Moussavi 2:1 With all due respect Sir Jack, please put that in your pipe and smoke it! Oh, and have the "pleasantest" of evenings yourself, sir! Survey – http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/TFT...
Here is an interesting article from the WaPo The Iranian People Speak
Israel longs to see Iran break apart, then they can rush in to save Freedom.
So, we have Adam saying that it is a question (or an answer?) that Iran probably doesn't want to cause Israel's demise, so Netanyahu's bluster is irrelevant. And, we have a few of the posse here saying "so what if Iran wants Israel's demise. That's a good thing." Which of you is right?
Speaking of contradictions, many “liberal,” Diaspora Jewish Zionists claim to support secularism in America on principle, yet oppose it on principle for Israel. This, in conjunction with the Israel lobby’s maneuvering to coerce massive and open-ended American taxpayer subsidization of Israel, and maneuvering the US into the Iraq war in part on behalf of Zionist expansionism, tells me they are not authentic secularists, but rather crypto Jewish supremacists bent on institutionalizing their supremacy both in America and in the Levant.
It means absolutely nothing. Iran is a repressive dictatorship. There will be no investigation. At the end of the day the Mullahs will crush any opposition.
"Of course"? How so? I would say it's more accurate to say Iran is committed to watching the Zionist regime in Israel pass into the pages of colonial history, in the fashion of the USSR.
#29 (photograph of a Mousavi supporter "evacuating an injured riot-police officer") is really an excellent, powerful shot. Kudos to the photographer who captured it.
Correct. The goy is there to serve him. God said so. How'd you like to be a trench mate of Witty in the US Army, though I admit that's a fantasy.
Just because some elements of the USG have been carrying out covert ops against the Iranian government doesn't mean that there isn't widespread genuine domestic opposition to it and its counter-productive policies. I have strong doubts that the CIA or any other entity has managed to do diddly squat with covert operations to affect the elections or the post-election turmoil. I think it would have played out substantively the same if there had been no neocon-inspired intervention. Iranians don't need the CIA to tell them that their government could be vastly improved. If CIA intervention were so important, why has the Iranian government not had less success cutting off telecommunications? Any analyst with a single brain cell should have figured out network-based comms would be critical to spread of post-election reaction to fraud and on-the-fly organization of protests, and covert efforts focused to enhance or assure their availability. I realize that this would probably be more than a tall order for an objective, but it really is a very obvious one, and if they tried it, it appears that they substantially failed, for which they could not be reasonably blamed. My assessment may be (probably is) too hasty. However, if they didn't even bother to try it, someone should be fired for incompetence. Preparing the Battlefield, The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran. by Seymour Hersh http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080...
This seems naive in view of history. The question is, are they American Jews, or Jewish Americans? What say you, Mister Murray?
Witty says there's no problem. In the USA keep things secular as that will most help the Jews. But in Israel, let's keep things Jewish as that will most help the Jews. Simple pimple, Witty's head, and his head cheese.
Why on Earth would anyone trust a neocon NAF poll? After the last eight years of neocon lies and treason, I'll take a pass, thank you very much.
"If you build it, he will come"
Eventually Anerica will break up, and I'd be willing to bet that ethnic issues will be a big reason for the demise. I see your point, but when many Jews still talk of assimilation, I find no reason not to continue talk of hosting.
If you build what, who will come?
Authoritarian and dictatorial governments don't need to have the backing of majorities of their electorates; they don't ask the electorates. This doesn't mean they aren't potentially dangerous. Say a majority of Afghanis don't care much about America one way or the other, while their Taliban government willingly hosts a small group of Al-Qaeida murderers eager to take down the World Trade Center: the danger to the WTC is not reduced becuase the Afghani voters weren't consulted. Likewise, even if a majority of Iranians eagerly seek peace with Israel (highly unlikely), if their government wants Israel destroyed and has the nuclear weapons to do this, the danger would be the same.
He didn't say.
That must be very exasperating!
If Isreal didn't have all the enemies it has created Israelis would be at each other's throats. The Palestinians and now Iran have kept the Jews from killing each other. Can't have that now can we? I would be the final curtain for the Zionist freak show.
I'm totally confounded. Not that you asked, but afternoon tea was delightful. So many scones to eat before I sleep! Well now, I wish that I had enough time to get to the bottom of this conundrum, but my game-keeper, Scudder awaits. Everyone have a peasant evening.
… in view of history Whatever the past is, it is past. The structure of human relations, interpersonal to international, constantly changes over time. The past can give clues to the future where there is obvious temporal correlation in some pattern, like thirst for power. However, such a correlation at any given time does not guarantee that it will continue into the future, and even for those patterns that do, the strength of the correlation is always changing. For example, one may be able to make a case that Jewish cultural and economic isolation from Poles was significant before WW2. This would provide little useful data to extrapolate an assessment of Jewish cultural and economic isolation in contemporary America. I think the situations are radically different. … are they American Jews, or Jewish Americans? I don't think the issue is so clear cut. I think they can be both American Jews and Jewish Americans. I don't think that consideration of different ordering of words to vary emphasis on degrees of acceptance of aspects of personal identity is particularly useful. America is the most diverse nation on the planet and I don't think the underlying dynamic of formation of personal identity in Jews differs from anyone else. America is no more a 'host' for Jews than for any other tightly knit community, and there are some that are definitely more tightly knit. Is America a 'host' for Sikhs, Amish, or Inuit? The word 'host' is naturally associated with the word 'parasite', and that is what I find most offensive. American Jews have made incredible contributions to American civilization, notwithstanding the negative influence of the Lobby. They certainly haven't been 'mooching' off the rest of us. The Lobby has been terrible for America, Jews have not.
Look now "Sir" Jack Gurney, this is MY Passion play. For God's sake, please 'bugger off'.
I'm still curious which of those two theses you subscribe to. Is it just not true that Israel is threatened, or is it true and a good thing?
Zimbabwe. And you are correct. In the mainstream media I hear about the suffering of the blacks (who to be fair, have suffered more than the Whites or Indians) but what they don't seem to mention is that both countries (Zimbabwe more so than South Africa) have been attempting to ethnically cleanse the area of white people. Ever since Tsvangarai got elected, things have just got worse (though it's not his fault).
like the US-backed Shah before them – Nothing seems to change
The role of network-based telecoms in modern political insurrection has an interesting predecessor in the railroad. Teodor Shanin's quantitative sociology of the 1905 Russian revolution is an incredible read. The Roots of Otherness: Russia as a 'developing Society' http://www.amazon.com/Roots-Otherness-Russia%60s-... The Roots of Otherness: Russia`s Turn of Century, Volume II, Russia 1905-7: Revolution as a Moment of Truth http://www.amazon.com/Roots-Otherness-Russia%60s-...
"As there world sat enthralled with the outpouring of defiance and dissent throughout Iran," I for one began to find you boring and irrelevant, Phil — just another yankee liberal interventionist hack, about ready for a job with the new, Obama-friendly RFE/RL propaganda broadcaster. I'm sure they'd like your breathy style — according to their antedeluvian psychology, it should have "youth appeal.".
Today ,on NPR ,they had this "expert" on Iran.She beleived that the election was rigged.MInd you,she said ,all circumstantial ,but all the polls showed that mousavi would win with a margin of two to one.When somebody pointed to her that two weeks ago the polls showed that ahmadinejad will when,she said 'it's possible,BUT YOU REALLY CANT TRUST POLLS COMING OUT OF IRAN' ,I kid you not.depraved minds.
These protests are hardly pro-democracy or pro-reform (their monopoly over the term "reformist" is also misleading)… they are incited by none other than Rafsanjani, a very corrupt individual who recently had a spat with Ahmadinejad. Also, the whole rationale behind the "where is my vote?" slogan is absurd: your vote is counted, the question is, how many millions voted for a candidate other than yours??? It seems that the idea is that just because you voted for someone, if that person does not win, it means it is no democracy. Do not be shocked, for this is the prevalent mentality in the ranks of the so-called "reformists." These kids that are mostly from well-off families (upper-middle class/upper class), very "westernized" and priding themselves in that, think their vote in the posh suburbs of Tehran should weigh more than the vote of the villages or the poor in the cities… or the elderly for that matter… Iran is not just its youth, it is not just its middle class, it is not just its urban population, it is not just the residents of its capital city. Iran is all those. That is why Ahmadinejad has won a landslide. I do not buy that there is vote rigging. In Lebanon, there has been massive electoral fraud and bribing, and this has been DOCUMENTED with VIDEOS an AUDIO RECORDINGS. And yet, in Iran, Moussavi supporters (supposedly numbering more than half the eligible voters in the country, as per Moussavi and his supporters) have been unable to produce ONE TINY evidence of voter fraud?? I mean, come on… this has to be the most obvious lie of the century.
Not even the NYT or CNN are referring to those in the streets of Tehran as "the Iranian people." Quit blowing this out of proportion please.
LOL
Zionists want to nuclear fry all of those Iranians in the picture.
Is it just not true that the secular identity of the US is threatened by Jewish Zionists, or is it true and a good thing? Also, just because Israel "feels" threatened doesn't mean it is, or that it shouldn't have to live with feeling threatened. Americans *felt* threatened by the Soviet Union, and with a lot more reason to feel threatened than Israel is by Iran. The Soviets said they were going to crush us. Yet we didn't go off half cocked and bomb away. Organized Jewry will probably always "feel" threatened wherever it is. That doesn't give it the right to warmonger against those whom they profess to feel threatened by (although certain Jews seem to believe, or profess to believe, that it does; and certain imperialists of Left and Right seem to go along with the whole farce and artifice to advance their own motives and agenda.)
war is always a failure of diplomacy nothing to be proud of on the contrary it only brings shame to the participants and needless suffering to the innocents never rejoice in it
"The greatest danger to Israel, to the Middle East, and to all of humanity, is the encounter between extremist Islam and nuclear weapons. " No–the greatest threat to the world is the encounter between Jewish psychotics, their garbage scow of a state and nuclear weapons.
"Today the world is standing with the people of Iran, tomorrow they are not going to want to turn around and attack them. " Heh! Don't count on it.
"Iran can be accurately portrayed as committed to Israel's demise, especially if the ruling theocracy does not act seriously (beyond just vague words) to investigate alleged vote tampering." No it can't. Iran has never been "committed to Israel's demise", and would never take any action to bring that about. The rest of your comment reveals how genuinely clueless you are about all things Iranian.
True, but. It is enormously tiring to see these constant comparisons by Richard. What about geo-politics, domination of the region via the undeclared nuclear arsenal, that's what he asks. Of course Iran can be accurately portrayed as committed to Israel's demise, especially if the ruling theocracy does not act seriously (beyond just vague words) to investigate alleged vote tampering. Evidence? Richard is sometimes like a prayer wheel. In a nutshell: Look how bad Iran is, look how wonderful Israel.
What if Richard Witty made a comment and nobody paid attention?
I don't buy that.
Wikipedia has a poll collection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_presidential...
"Iranians don't need the CIA to tell them that their government could be vastly improved. " Thank you! Iranians are not as naive and childlike as some paternalistic types on the left would prefer to see them.
Yep on paragraphs 1 and 2, maybe on paragraph 3.
Iranians who are Jewish are also Iranians, and the overwhelming majority prefer to stay that way.
A yes, the Terror Free Tomorrow foundation! Has anyone bothered to look into who is involved in that august body? It might just be worthwhile if you really wish to understand the origins of that poll.
It looks like about 20,000 tops. In other words, a tiny fraction of just one of the anti-war protests that occurred in various cities throughout the world prior to the Iraq invasion. You know, the ones that didn't make the front page of any major newspapers.
Approved.
1. The world doesn't stand with 20,000 upper class idiots in Iran–likely the recipients of some of the $400 million Bush funneled in last year to destabilize the regime–trying to overturn the results of a popular election. 2. This won't stop any neocons from vilifying Iran nor Ahmadinejad. Anyone want to bet I can find a prominent example of Iran war-mongering within a week? A month? Other than that, yeah, bullseye. I guess.
"I have strong doubts that the CIA or any other entity has managed to do diddly squat with covert operations to affect the elections or the post-election turmoil." Take those strong doubts of yours to Caracas and open up your eyes, Colin. "Iranians don't need the CIA to tell them that their government could be vastly improved. " Rasfanjani's people claimed there were irregularities after the 2005 election as well. But there weren't any color-coded violent protests. Things would've had to have gotten MUCH worse in Iran since 2005–except that for many of the rural poor, they haven't. They've gotten better. "My assessment may be (probably is) too hasty." Bullseye. But when you do it, it's fine. No big. When Amanpour on the other hand says the Iranian government has "shut down the internet" (demonstrably false), well, that's what 21st century media coups are made of. How long before the howling for increased sanctions in the echo-chamber is deafening?
Interesting development: Marsha B. Cohen on LobeLog Infos and dis-infos: Ross: Not out but up: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,... http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,...
You must be joking.
So, no answer to my question?
No, I am not joking at all. But then I actually know something real about Iran, and I do not have a neurotic, paranoid need to see myself as being under an existential threat at all times.
If Netanyahu was obtuse, President Obama was astute when commenting on Iran today. Instead of opining on whether he thought the elections were fraudulent, he focused on the issue of whether the regime's response to the protests was legitimate, suggesting that violence against peaceful protesters (his deft reframing of the issue of violence) was against a universal value, the right to dissent. He also said "…there appears to be a sense on the part of people who were so hopeful and so engaged and so committed to democracy who now feel betrayed…" In other words, the Mousavi presidential campaign lifted the people's hope that their voices would count, and now they feel betrayed. Obama's test of a satisfactory outcome could therefore be defined this way, as if it were a statement to the regime: If what you do from now on sharpens that sense of betrayal, you will lose your people's trust and thus your legitimacy. How could another Ahmadinejad anointment be anything but another betrayal? Every one of us with access to blogs or the media — and especially to Iranian bloggers — should keep repeating Obama's equation and perhaps give it specific political content, because the part of the regime not glued to Ahmadinejad needs to see that they have only one way to regain the people's trust, and that's to order a re-vote. Right now the movement in the streets is based mainly on political rage — it doesn't seem to have an explicit, proximate goal. If the goal were a Guardian Council order for a re-vote, it would paint the regime into a corner — courtesy of Obama's equation.
How about the Foreign Policy Initiative? They are always looking for interventionist do-gooders.
Iran is very clearly committed to Israel's destruction, not just through words but through its support of racist hate groups on its borders that have not only harmed Israelis but effectively derailed the peace process. I guess you just have a "neurotic paranoid need" to pretend that you are of an ethnicity which you are not, and pretend that you have "Iraqi friends" that inform you of stuff when all you do is read English translations of websites.
Sorry, I do have to correct one thing I did not read carefully enough: "If tomorrow the results of the election were reversed and Musavi declared the victor, he is almost certain to carry on with enrichment, assistance to Hamas and Hizbullah." No, Musavi would not carry on with any of those things because none of those are Musavi's – or AhmadiNejad's – prerogative. That is something those who have assigned AhmadiNejad as the bogeyman du jour either are too ignorant to know themselves, or don't want the American public to know that the President of Iran does not in any way determine foreign policy, or nuclear policy or military policy. That is the purview of the Supreme Leader, not the President.
"If Isreal didn't have all the enemies it has created Israelis would be at each other's throats." Most likely true, and that probable reality has been subject of discussion among some Israelis for decades. "The Palestinians and now Iran have kept the Jews from killing each other." Wrong. They might have kept Israel from imploding, but do try to understand the difference between Zionists, Israelis and The Jews.
Shut the fuck up is typical language of the Jew & Israel-haters who flock to MondoLies like flies to shit.
Your comment is racist garbage.
Your comment is racist garbage.
Nice straw man. The Iranian Government did disrupt specific things such as Twitter, Facebook, and SMS. Why would it do that?
Strahl 62p · 10 hours ago Shut the fuck up.
Moon of Alabama = Win
AFAIAC, Phil has discredited his own stance on Israel, by revealing himself as a liberal imperialist interventionist a la Georg Soros. It's ironic that his only current employer, P Buchanan, has in a pseudo-conservative way adopted a parallel posture (in his case, lordly disdain for the grubby Ahmadinejad).
Please remember that Taliban hosted Al-Qaeda but were willing, and said it repeatedly and on record, to have them arrested and extradited to USA upon receiving evidence of their involvement in 9/11. They are still waiting.
Not sure how you think this is helping your argument that it was a black op since you are essentially agreeing that the Iranian government had some success cutting off communication. Why would it disrupt Twitter, Facebook, and SMS? The answer to that seems obvious. Oh, and by the way, it is ever so easy to get past those government blocks, and the government really can't do anything about it. The Syrian government blocks Facebook, the entire Blogspot site, and a whole lot of other things, and I can get to them any time I want on any computer or any connection I want.
This is a case where the "reality-based world" can't be allowed to interfere with a comfortable liberal ideology. The visions of a multicultural South Africa and Zimbabwe (which I shared in as a high school student) turned into a nightmare of lawlessness, social collapse, and ethnic cleansing. It's much easier to supress this news than force people to question whether the assumptions of modern liberalism are actually built upon sand.
"Ahmenijidad?! Good grief, Richard Witty! If the guy poses a mortal threat to that Jewish State you worship but will not go to live in, the very least you can do is learn how to spell his name. In a pinch you could google "president of iran", and then do a copy/paste. Here, look, it is easy: Ah-mad-i-Ne-jad. Ahmad-i-Ne-jad. Ahmadi Nejad. AhmadiNejad. Got it now?
Thanks for remembering that Eva. I daresay not many Americans have a clue, although it WAS reported in the MSM at the time. I guess their blood lust was too strong at the time.
Very good points. I've definitely noticed a pattern whereby Israel seems to have to bomb something…anything…in order to maintain a semblance of unity. Before Gaza, the government was almost paralyzed, and the Gazans were effectively enlisted as the genocidal threat on the doorstep just before the elections, with stunning success for the right wing. I think many Israelis are rationally frightened by the possibility of peace with their neighbors. The divisions within the country are so great that only real or perceived existential threats seem to hold them together. Israelis still haven't entirely worked out their own identity. Is Israel "the Jewish state" when most Jews don't wish to live there? A valiant (Jewish) crusader state defending the (Jewish? Christian?) West against "Islamofacism?" Should it be a secular liberal state similar to the US that happens to have a lot of Jews? Or will it simply be Israel, a small middle eastern state that happens to have Judaism as an established religion?
clearly? How exactly? Which of the two countries has been sabre-rattling against the other? Which of the two has invaded more countries in the past 10 years than the other has in the past 200? Which of the two is calling for a military strike against the other? Which has nuclear weapons and doesn't allow UN inspectors in?
Garbage has value. Are you trying to tell us there is no right-wing push for bombing Iran in Israel? Is the Dennis Ross POV garbage?
We agree.