Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 42 (since 2010-01-27 05:00:22)

Showing comments 42 - 1
Page:

  • Neocon smear of Hagel ricochets around web before 'Atlantic' article strikes it down
    • hass January 8, 2013 at 4:05 pm with 3 replies

      Excuse me, but what's wrong with saying "Let the Jews pay for it", exactly? Doesn't Israel define itself as the "Homeland of the Jews"? Don't pro-Israel lobbyists insist that support for Israel is inherent in being Jewish, and that even Jews who criticize Israel are "Self-Hating Jews" ... and yet anyone who says "The Jews" is an anti-Semite? Are we similarly not allowed to directly refer to "The Swedes" or "The Dutch"?

  • Who funds Pamela Geller? In 2010, it was a former Israel Project board member
    • hass December 19, 2012 at 3:09 pm

      The Israeli Project was pushing out propaganda for a US-Iran war too:

      "A recent series of slick dispatches from the public relations front of the war on terror falls into this mail pile. Typically illustrated by an 8-by-11 glossy of a mushroom cloud rising from an atomic blast, the scary memos from the Israel Project's copywriting crew breathlessly depict the various threats represented by a "nuclear Iran," patiently explaining why that radioactive outcome is "dangerous for everyone." These regular mailings from the Israel Project to "opinion agents" such as yours truly are, in effect, a public relations campaign for war."

      link to uscatholic.org

  • 'Daily Beast' crank against intermarriage pushes regime change in Iran on the side
    • hass October 18, 2012 at 12:09 pm

      Iran is only deemed "serious" about negotiations when it agrees to capitulate to US/Israeli demands, in their eyes.

  • New round of Iran sanctions pressures Obama to move closer to Israel's 'red line'
    • hass August 3, 2012 at 11:50 am with 21 replies

      About 40 countries have the theoretical "capability" to make nukes right now:
      link to nti.org
      Thats 1 out of every 4 or 5 countries on the planet.

      Ironically, unlike many of those nations that enrich uranium, Iran has already offered to place additional restrictions on its nuclear program that go well beyond its legal obligations under the NPT (these offers included opening the program to joint participation with Western nations, effectively making it impossible for them to secretly make nukes)

      But framing the issue in terms of "capabilities" and "intentions" to do things at some indefinite point in the future, is useful since it conveniently side-steps the fact that there's no actual evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran.

  • Romney backs Israel in the battle of the Iran red lines
    • hass August 1, 2012 at 5:19 pm with 7 replies

      I'm sorry but the Times is NOT CORRECT when it refers to "Iran's nuclear weapons program". The consensus in the whole of the intelligence community in the US (and Israel) is that Iran has no nuclear weapons program and has yet to demonstrate any intention of starting one anytime soon.

      Furthermore, according IAEA head Elbaradei, about 40 countries are ALREADY "capable" of making nukes. link to seattletimes.nwsource.com

  • 'NYT' describes ethnic cleansing by another name
    • hass July 24, 2012 at 3:14 pm with 2 replies

      The preferred term is "transfer" -- but Dershowitz has already declared that ethnic cleansing has been given a bad rap, and that the Palestinians should agree to their own ethnic cleansing due to their "widespread" support of the Holocaust and the Nazis, and furthermore, because the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians should be seen as a form of "affirmative action" for Jews. And I'm not kidding -- read his book "The case for Israel"

  • Joe Lieberman, and liberal hero Elizabeth Warren, peddle propaganda on Iran
  • Bernard Lewis revises Bernard Lewis (says he opposed invasion of Iraq!)
  • Media Matters report documents inflation of threat from Iran on news networks
    • hass April 20, 2012 at 9:07 am with 1 replies

      Actually, while the US National Intelligence Estimate claims that Iran HAD investigated building nuclear weapons prior to 2003, the IAEA has said that they never found that to be true either. In 2009, when the Right and Israel were accusing IAEA head Elbaradei of "covering up for Iran" by "censoring" IAEA reports, the IAEA specifically said: "With respect to a recent media report, the IAEA reiterates that it has no concrete proof that there IS OR HAS BEEN a nuclear weapon programme in Iran."
      The IAEA specifically said that the allegations -- the "Alleged Studies" which now are called "Possible Military Dimensions" in IAEA reports issued under the new IAEA head Amano, have NOT been verified. According to Elbaradei's memoirs, one of the key documents that came from Israel (about "neutron initiators" or nuclear detonators) was such an obvious forgery that he simply returned it to the Israelis with a chuckle. That document was then reproduced by the Times of London. When the commentators to the Times site noted some problems with the document -- it was typed using Arabic rather than Farsi fonts -- the Times (Oliver Kamm) admitted that they had "retyped" the document themselves. This became known as the "Kamm Scam". Google it.

  • P5 +1 Iran nuclear talks went swimmingly! Netanyahu is fuming
  • Journalists Mike Murphy of NBC and Donna Brazile of CNN to speak at conference promoting Iran war
    • hass March 2, 2012 at 10:28 am

      Paul Begala's position on Iran was clarified back in 2000 when he said, " "I love it when Republicans fight. It is like when Iran and Iraq fight each other. You want heavy casualties, on all sides"

  • Crawfish, gumbo, and the truth
  • Forward: 'Israel and most US Jewish orgs are beating drums of war'
    • hass February 27, 2012 at 5:15 pm with 1 replies

      Actually Iran first proposed the creation of a NWFZ in the Mideast -- in 1974 with Egypt, and also 4 years earlier. Ahmadinejad has endorsed that too.

    • hass February 27, 2012 at 4:55 pm with 1 replies

      Iran has already allowed all the legal inspections that the NPT actually requires, and for many years far exceeded what the NPT or even the Additional Protocol (which Iran is NOT bound by) requires. In fact the current dispute over IAEA access to Parchin (which is NOT a nuclear site and therefore falls outside of the IAEA's legal authority) disregards the fact that Parchin was already visited by IAEA inspectors -- twice -- with nothing found. Indeed, since the US only accuses Iran of having the "intention to obtain the capability" to make nukes, there would be nothing to inspect. You can't inspect "intentions".

      See folks, let me spell it out for you: under the terms of Iran's (standard) safeguards, the "exclusive purpose" of the IAEA inspections is to ensure the non-diversion of fissile material to non-peaceful uses. That's all. They measure the fissile material, and see if any is missing. That's the "exclusive purpose" of the inspections. Access to non-nuclear sites, such as missile design facilities, or interviews of nuclear scientists etc all fall OUTSIDE of the IAEA's authority since it does not involve fissile material. Unless and until fissile material is involved, it isn't any of the IAEA's business. The US has been pressing the IAEA to demand access to sites that fall outside of the IAEA's authority as a "confidence building measure" which Iran allowed in the past, only to see its rights denied and the goalposts moved.

  • Sanity check on Iran
    • hass February 23, 2012 at 2:23 pm

      The mess with Iran is really a symptom of our dysfunctional relationship with Israel, as well as the influence of small and wealthy domestic constituencies on shaping national policies. And since I don't see those two issues being resolved anytime soon, it is quite likely that this country will be dragged into yet another war, not because it makes any sort of rational sense but simply because of the momentum of the hype generated by the NeoCons and pro-Israeli lobby, who have right now effectively made it impossible for any US politician to climb down from a war footing on Iran.

      And if you doubt this, consider that all of our Constitutional checks-and-balances, which were built into the system supposedly to prevent or at least slow down bad decision-making, such as the Congressional check on the Executive's war making power, were simply non-issues when it came to the invasion of Iraq. Every single check-and-balance in our system totally failed to stop a rush to a war based on falsified information. Our democratic system proved to be a farce and a paper tiger.

  • 'Free Beacon' reporter attacks Center for American Progress in misleading articles that push for Iran war
    • hass February 13, 2012 at 7:25 pm

      This much-hyped IAEA report simply recycled the past allegations that the IAEA had deemed not credible, thanks to the installation of the pro-US Amano as the Director of the IAEA.

      Some facts to consider about Iran's nuclear program: Iran and the IAEA made list of outstanding issues to be resolved in Aug 2007 (which the IAEA was vehemently criticized by the USA.) When the Feb 2008 IAEA came out, it gave Iran a clean bill of health on all those issues. The sole exception was what the IAEA referred to as "alleged studies" -- US claims that a smuggled laptop computer from Iran (nicknamed the "Laptop of Death") contained secret pre-2003 evidence of Iranian investigations into making nuclear weapons (the US had been shopping around this evidence for a while but had only partially presented it to the IAEA just a week before its Feb 2008 report came out.) Iran has consistently said that this "evidence" was either fake, or related to civilian activities, and that it would address the material once it was allowed to see it. However, the US has to date refused to share the material with Iran, and in some cases with even the IAEA (which caused the IAEA to complain in its report.) In any case the IAEA has never endorsed this material, and the IAEA director Elbaradei specifically said that the material was too unverified. So the Israelis and the US started a smear campaign against ElBaradei, claiming that he was "censoring" this material. The IAEA issued a public statement denying the censorship accusations, and specifically said that there was no real evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran, EVER:

      With respect to a recent media report, the IAEA reiterates that it has no concrete proof that there is or has been a nuclear weapon programme in Iran.

      link to iaea.org

      In his book ElBaradei went on to detail some of this evidence which came from Israel, and how he returned it to Israel because it was obviously forged.

  • New York's Muslim community fights back against NYPD Islamophobia
    • hass February 7, 2012 at 12:17 pm

      Muslims organizing and seeking to create a broadbased movement? Sounds like thet want to take over!

      Seriously isn't interesting how much the Islamophobic hysteria narrative has in common with classical anti-Semitic narrative? They're secretly plotting to take over etc etc.

  • Praying while Shi'a: the NYPD's latest religious profiling scandal
    • hass February 4, 2012 at 11:20 pm

      You need to read a fuller version of this article -- the program was indeed carried out. The funniest part: "Muslims make up only a fraction of New York's Iranian community so squad members returned from their rounds in Iranian neighborhoods and reported finding Jews and Christians, the former official said."
      Doh!

      Ironically Fox has picked up and printed this AP article:
      link to foxnews.com

  • Both sides are wrong in the ‘Israel Firsters’ debate
  • Israeli officials say Iran's 'existential threat' is-- braindrain of 200,000 'best and brightest'
    • hass February 3, 2012 at 11:49 am

      Note that Panetta pointedly refused to comment on the view that Ignatius attributed to him via an anonymous source.

  • The Iraq war coverup: What did AIPAC do and when did it do it?
    • hass February 2, 2012 at 6:21 pm

      Joe Klein vs. Abe Foxman on Iraq, Iran and “Jewish Neoconservatives”
      JewishWeek Thu, 06/26/2008
      James Besser in Washington

      Jewish leaders are understandably nervous as they continue pressing for a stronger U.S. and international response to Iran, while trying to avoid stirring up recurrent charges that Jews somehow caused the seemingly endless Iraq war and are now trying to do the same with Iran.

      link to thejewishweek.com

    • hass February 2, 2012 at 6:15 pm

      Jewish Leaders Caught In Iran Bind
      As Walt-Mearscheimer book appears, efforts to keep military option open run counter to national mood.
      James D. Besser/Washington - Washington Correspondent

      The Jewish Week Aug 31, 2007
      link to thejewishweek.com

      (article now removed - copy here: link to stumbleinn.net )

      Even as they fight revived charges that Israel and the pro-Israel community are beating the drums for war with Iran, Jewish leaders here are quietly trying to protect President George W. Bush’s ability to use military force to knock out that country’s nuclear weapons program if diplomatic efforts fail...

    • hass February 2, 2012 at 6:13 pm

      Jews Brace For Next Phase In Iran Battle
      Recent breakthroughs in the U.S.-led effort to squeeze Iran could change the political calculus for American Jewish groups that have benefited hugely from their decades-old focus on Iran — and which have largely succeeded in making Iran’s threat to both U.S. and Israeli interests a top policy for Congress and the White House...."[I]n a fiercely competitive fundraising environment... fear is always the best inducement to giving"
      link to thejewishweek.com
      ======================
      Focus Grouping War with Iran

      link to motherjones.com

      =====================

      IRAN SPAM
      A shockingly awful public relations campaign is underway for yet another war.
      link to uscatholic.org

    • hass February 2, 2012 at 5:57 pm

      "AIPAC is pushing hard for an attack on Iran"
      "There is only one country that is putting pressure on the US to attack Iran, and that is Israel," Mearsheimer said. "AIPAC is pushing hard for an attack on Iran, and no other lobby in America is," he said, referring to the pro-Israeli lobby group the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. - John Mearsheimer

      Come on, let’s not kid about it. A significant percentage of Jewish money, and many leading American Jews support the Israeli position that Iran is an existential threat. And I think it’s as simple as that. - Seymour Hersch

      You just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers [to attack Iran.] - General Wesley Clark

      [AIPAC is] the most powerful lobby and has pushed this war from the beginning. I don't think they represent the mainstream of American Jewish thinking at all, but because they are so well organized, and their members are extraordinarily powerful -- most of them are quite wealthy -- they have been able to exert power. -Congressman James Moran

      link to iranaffairs.com

    • hass February 2, 2012 at 5:55 pm with 1 replies

      Israel To U.S.: Don't Delay Iraq Attack -CBS

      Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq's Saddam Hussein, an aide to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Friday.

      Israeli intelligence officials have gathered evidence that Iraq is speeding up efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons, said Sharon aide Ranaan Gissin.

      "Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage will serve no purpose," Gissin said. "It will only give him (Saddam) more of an opportunity to accelerate his program of weapons of mass destruction."

      ===============

      Tuesday, November 5, 2002 in the Times/UK
      Attack Iran the Day Iraq War Ends, Demands Israel
      by Stephen Farrell, Robert Thomson and Danielle Haas

      ISRAEL'S Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has called on the international community to target Iran as soon as the imminent conflict with Iraq is complete.

      In an interview with The Times , Mr Sharon insisted that Tehran � one of the �axis of evil powers identified by President Bush � should be put under pressure �the day after� action against Baghdad ends because of its role as a �centre of world terror. He also issued his clearest warning yet that Israel would strike back if attacked by Iraqi chemical or biological weapons, no matter how much Washington sought to keep its controversial Middle Eastern ally out of any war in Iraq.

      MORE: link to iranaffairs.com

  • Mossad chief held secret talks in DC with top U.S. officials
    • hass February 2, 2012 at 10:55 am

      Because Iran has not in fact violated the NPT. The text of Iran's safeguards agreement with the IAEA is clear: the EXCLUSIVE purpose is to ensure the non-diversion of declared nuclear material to non-peaceful uses. Every single IAEA report has always said that Iran has allowed all the required inspections to conclude there has been no such diversion, thus Iran is in fact in full compliance with the NPT.
      link to guardian.co.uk

    • hass February 2, 2012 at 10:45 am

      Like I said, according to the IAEA, 40 other countries already have a "threshold" capacity to make nukes. So if there is a third box for "has threshhold capability" then Iran would be included in there along with 1/4th of the entire rest of the world. Since civilian and military nuclear programs are essentially the same (only difference is the degree of enrichment) then many countries would fit into the "has threshold capability to make nukes" box -- but that's just not the same as as "has a weapons program."

      Iran has indeed repeatedly put forth a variety of offers to place additional limits on its nuclear program well beyond anything that other countries have agreed to or what the NPT legally requires of Iran. These offers have included opening the program to 50-50 participation with the US, and imposing stricter inspections than even what the "Additional Protocol" would require (even though many nuclear-developing countries refuse to even sign the Additional Protocol -- Argentina, Brazil, Egypt amongst them) .... but the US has consistently ignored these offers (more recently, Iran has offered to cease enriching uranium to 20% which is used to power its medical reactor, which the US has prevented from being fueled, and to swap its uranium in a deal brokered by Brazil and Turkey, which the Obama administration killed at the last minute much to the surprise of the Turks and Brazilians.) Short of giving up its nuclear program (which is what the US demands) Iran has bent over backwards to suggest alternatives. Even multilateral enrichment, endorsed by US and international experts, was suggested - but ignored.

      The history of this conflict shows therefore quite clearly a pattern that the US has done everything it can to PREVENT a peaceful resolution to the nuclear standoff, by ignoring peaceful resolution opportunities, and by constantly moving goalposts and raising the bar to potential settlement opportunities. Why? Because as the Washington Post let accidentally slip, this is about justifying regime change in Iran, not about non-proliferation. The last thing the US wants is for the nuclear standoff to the resolved, thus depriving the US of a convenient pretext for regime change -- just like how the US Neocons did not want the weapons inspectors in Iraq to do their jobs and spent a lot of time denigrating them instead.

      link to alternet.org

    • hass February 1, 2012 at 12:56 pm with 4 replies

      According to the IAEA, even today 40 countries already have the "capability" to make nukes because it is inherent in developing a civilian nuclear program, and is perfectly legal under the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Thus the characterization of the Iran threat as its mere "capability" to make nukes only highlights the fact that no one has any actual evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran, and so instead we're treated to allegations about hypothetical "threats" and Iranian "intentions to acquire capabilities" to make nukes which could just as easily be applied to 1 out of every 4 countries in the world.

      Sadly, our media then obfuscates any difference between having a nuclear weapons program versus having the "capability" to make nukes, by using terms such as "Iran going nuclear" in order to box-in our policy-makers into a false choice: either Iran must be sanctions/bombed, or else Iran will "go nuclear". Thus, bombing Iran is always "on the table" but the range of alternative intermediate options -- such as cooperating with Iran's nuclear program as it operates under IAEA safeguards as do the nuclear programs of many other countries -- is of course always "off the table".

      In short, this conflict is not really about an actual nuclear threat from Iran. That's just made up. Rather, this is about justifying and imposing regime change in Iran, by war if necessary, and the nuclear issue is just a convenient pretext and cover for that policy. The last thing the US and Israel want is for the nuclear dispute with Iran to be resolved peacefully while the Iranian government continues to be in power.

  • Seymour Hersh: Obama's Iran policy is a 'political game' to 'look tough'
    • hass November 22, 2011 at 12:06 pm

      Yes I know this - but my point still stands that despite the fact that Hersh is right on many points, he still is wrong on some other points and ends up contributing to the hysteria.

      For example, he endorses the view that Iran DID have a nuclear weapons program prior to 2003, when in fact there's no evidence of that either (the IAEA under Elbaradei said it had no evidence that IRan EVER had a nuclear weapons program)

      Hersh also endorses the view that IRan seeks nuclear "latency" - which is wrong for the reasons explained in the link provided: link to iranaffairs.com

    • hass November 21, 2011 at 11:54 pm with 2 replies

      Seymour Hersh is sloppy with the facts and ends up making his own contributions to the false narrative on Iran

      link to iranaffairs.com

  • Israel, GCC and the US -- An alliance of convenience
    • hass November 9, 2011 at 8:51 pm

      Actually, as confirmed by even US polling organizations, about 80% of the Iranian electorate turned out for the last presidential vote, and about 60% voted for Ahmadinejad (and no, there is no actual evidence of fraud.) This doesn't suggest a rather large support base for the regime. On average, 69% of Iranians participate in their presidential elections on a regular basis. Apparently they don't consider their system to be illegitimate.

  • Remnick favors containment of Iran, calling war plans 'a heedless attack that risks the whirlwind'
    • hass November 7, 2011 at 12:08 pm with 1 replies

      In 2003, Iran offered to make complete peace with the US and even to recognize Israel. This and many other Iranian concessions have been ignored, because Iranian 'nuclear weapons' are just an excuse for forcing regime change in Iran, just as "WMDs in IRaq" was just an excuse for a war.
      link to iranaffairs.com

  • 'Washington Post learned nothing from Iraq, baselessly claims ‘Sanctions aren’t slowing Iran’s nuclear progress’
    • hass July 25, 2011 at 12:35 pm

      There's zero evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, and in fact IRan's nuclear program including its enrichment program were first set up under the Shah with the encouragement and assistance of Western countries. The Iranians themselves say that they don't see nuclear weapons as providing any sort of security.
      link to iranaffairs.com

    • hass July 25, 2011 at 12:34 pm

      There's nothing "hilarious" about it - Iran's nuclear program started with the encouragement and support of the United States in the 1970s because Iran needs to export the oil and gas to earn an income rather than consume it domestically. Since then, Iran's population has tripled and it now consumes more than 40% of its oil domestically. The Washington Post noted that the same people who claim that Iran doesn't really need nuclear power were making the opposite argument when the Shah was around.
      link to washingtonpost.com

  • Now what happened in Iran in 1979?
    • hass January 31, 2011 at 11:39 am

      The suggestion that the repressive measures under the Shah were benign compared to now is nonsense. The Savaak (shah's secret police) had virtual free reign for 40 years and there was barely a squeak from the international media about "human rights" in Iran. Read Dorman and Farhang's "US Press and Iran".

      Also, there was ZERO evidence that the elections in 2009 were "stolen" and in fact poll after poll shows that the majority of Iranians did vote for Ahmadienjad and did not support the riotors.

    • hass January 31, 2011 at 11:36 am

      Yes it is true. After the revolution, the Tudeh (Communist) Party was wiped out, with American connivance (a Soviet defector had given the names of their operatives in Iran, and the CIA forwarded these to the new regime) despite the fact that by then the Tudeh had been reduced to a talking shop. Later, there was a major in-fighting between the Marxist-Islamist radicals called the Mojaheddin (aka MKO/MEK/PMOI/NCRI etc.) who were forced out of Iran and went off to Iraq where they sided with Saddam Hussein and turned into a cult that is now courted by the NeoCons

  • Let's counter the mythology that Iran wants nukes and would strike Israel if it had them
    • hass January 12, 2011 at 1:10 pm with 1 replies

      There is a deliberate effort at obfuscation when civilian uranium enrichment is equated to having nuclear weapons. Note that if you read most of the assessments on Iran carefully, they refer to an potential Iranian "capability" or "intention" to acquire nuclear programs in the indefinite future, and not to an existing nuclear weapons program. Theoretically, ANY country with any sort of nuclear program is "just X years away" from making nukes and certainly far less for having the "capility" to make nukes. As I mentioned previously, there are about 40 countries that already have this "threshhold" capability. Argentina, Brazil just developed the same technology. Unlike those countries, however, Iran has signed and implemented the Additional Protocol which allowed more intrusive inspections, and has offered to place additional restrictions on its nuclear program well beyond its legal obligations (such as their offer to open the program to joint participation by the US and others.) Is this what a country that "wants nuclear weapons" does?

  • With Goldberg, nukes are either a few months or four years away-- but that's definitive!
    • hass January 12, 2011 at 1:16 pm

      No, you're quite right. In 1984 Jane's predicted that Iran would have nukes in 2 years. In 1992 a Congressional report predicted that Iran already had nuclear weapons. See link to iranaffairs.com

    • hass January 11, 2011 at 3:34 pm

      Welcome - read IranAffairs.com

    • hass January 11, 2011 at 10:56 am with 1 replies

      Seems to me that the Israelis want to keep the kettle of "iranian nukes" on a constant boil. Sometimes they have to increase the heat and talk about "imminent" attacks and flying gas chambers, and sometimes they have to lower the heat by taking credit for supposed delays to Iran's nuclear weapons program when there's no actual evidence of any such program. (Too much hype and there's a risk that people would stop taking it seriously.)

    • hass January 11, 2011 at 10:47 am with 2 replies

      Pretty much ANY country "could" make a nuke in 4 years. Remember, it took Pakistan only 6 years in the 1960s and to make nuclear missiles. In fact according to Green Peace and the IAEA, right now 40 countries could rapidly make nukes and another 120 could do so given more time. This is a nonsense charge meant for scaremongering.

Showing comments 42 - 1
Page:

Comments are closed.