Ahmadinejad at Columbia University New York

by Terence Tue Sep 25, 2007 16:06

There is a video and transcript of a full interview by Scott Pelley with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In it, Ahmadinejad talks about his visit to New York, Iran's nuclear program and his views on Israel.

by scared to look Tue Sep 25, 2007 16:15

Ahmadinejad at Columbia
http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2007/09/ahmadinejad....html
here's the verbatim report of how Columbia university president Bollinger introduced the event
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/07/09/lcbopeningremarks....html It's important to get several things in that, (a) he wasn't talking about photocopiers, library time or student rent levels (b) he is a Democrat who brought attention to his lot's presidential hopes without actually tasering a student (c) he gave himself more time than he gave Ahmadinejad (d) he betrayed that most nefarious of professional jealousies & internal politics which is the age-old relationship between academics. Because if you pay attention to (a)(b)(c) [this aint algebra it's a piece of piss] you'll notice that just after thanking his subordinate the dean John Coatsworth who managed to get the debate together agin his wishes & who had just told the audience of "an extraordinary opportunity to directly engage in an atmosphere of civility and restraint.” he then went & insulted the democratically elected leader of a state almost every Foxnews viewer wants to nuke next week.

Without choosing between them, for we are not going to choose between them, we can reduce this in either of two directions [perhaps more - you tell me]
1: this debate will avert a war & was an exercise of supreme importance in all the values we hold dear.
2: this debate was an utter farce of as wanton propaganda value as Ahmadinejad's holocaust conference & can only be judged using the scientific tool of the clapometer.

by Aragon Tue Sep 25, 2007 17:02

Ahmadinejad did not say Israel should be wiped off the map. Farsi speaker explains:

http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/rumor-of-the-century/

by Stain the Obvious Tue Sep 25, 2007 17:07

Did he ask the United States of Amnesia for an apology for arming and supporting Sadam Hussein in an invasion and 8 year war against Iran? (The Irish government sould apologise for selling beef on credit to Saddam's miltary at this point.) How about staging a coup of a democratically elected governmet that nationalised the Iranian oil industry way back when? The recent reform movement in Iran went into a declline when the U.S. military ensconsed itself in the nieghboring states of Iraq and Afghanistan. A coincidence I think not!

by Sceptic Tue Sep 25, 2007 18:32

Re the Farsi clarification does it mean the Israelis can sleep peacefully at night now that the matter’s been cleared up? Actions are what matter more and the Iranian promotion and arming of Hizbullah is what began last year’s war. In reply to the last post it was the USSR that armed Saddam, France being the second biggest exporter. The problem for the west and the Gulf States especially was that an Iranian victory in the war would have been even more disastrous than an Iraqi one, as unsavoury as Saddam was. You don’t get to choose whose interest you might support against another at a given time in international relations- they can get chosen for you. Like when Stalin suddenly became an ally of the US and UK in 1941 – bad and all as he was Hitler was worse. Its reality.

by snoring Tue Sep 25, 2007 19:12

אנגלית
as they mostly say in Israel. Here are 3 articles from today's Israeli press, the centre "Haaretz" newspaper in their English language translations on yesterday's debate each of which carries copious comments from readers both in and out of Israel.

* "The clear loser from Ahmadinejad's visit is Israel" by Shmuel Rosner
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/906890.html

* Iranian President: If Holocaust happened, why must Palestinians pay?
By Shlomo ShamirShamir, Sandra Cariglio and Yael Wissner-Levy, Haaretz Correspondents and News Agencies
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/906472.html

* On the way to a pariah state By Carlo Strenger
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/906924.html

____________________________________________

Of the plethora of groups who assembled yesterday on Broadway to express their views on it all, only one group were identified in news reports as Jewish. The New York Times noted in the report linked to above in the article the presence of a Jewish band playing "you are my sunshine" in fancy dress. So I reckon they're sleeping ok -after all it's a cheery little song with a universal meaning.
אנגלית
(perhaps your computer doesn't allow you see the hebrew word there- or the wood for the trees...)

By the way tonight as part of the Columbia university "world leader" thing, they're talking about the importance of jazz music & people are invited to a jazz fusion gig on the campus. Now let's talk about the different interpretations of the boy on boy & girl on girl action thing. For that curiously enough was one little bit where both sides we don't agree with seemed to concur.

by Aragon Tue Sep 25, 2007 20:05

"Re the Farsi clarification does it mean the Israelis can sleep peacefully at night now that the matter’s been cleared up? Actions are what matter more and the Iranian promotion and arming of Hizbullah is what began last year’s war. In reply to the last post it was the USSR that armed Saddam, France being the second biggest exporter. The problem for the west and the Gulf States especially was that an Iranian victory in the war would have been even more disastrous than an Iraqi one, as unsavoury as Saddam was. You don’t get to choose whose interest you might support against another at a given time in international relations- they can get chosen for you. Like when Stalin suddenly became an ally of the US and UK in 1941 – bad and all as he was Hitler was worse. Its reality. "

Utter BS from start to finish.

The US along with others did arm Saddam.
The US has an aresenal of nuclear weapons which could wipe the world population out several times over.
The US is threatening to use those weapons.
The US has fomented or conducted illegal and bloody invasions of countries around the world - more than any other country.
Iran however, has BEEN invaded itself - with US connivance and yet the US claims that it is threatened. Is Iran a neighbour country to the US?
The US has been amassing a military threat to Iran since it illegally invaded Iraq.
Iran made numerous offers to international agencies and the US to be transparent about its nuclear capability over the last several years - the US rejected every single one of them. It wants war regardless of the truth.
The Zionist REGIME in Israel - which is what Ahmadinejad said should be removed - is a violent , illegitimate and aggressor regime which has also invaded neighbouring territories.
It has an illegal arsenal of nuclear weapons unlike any of its neighbouring countries, including Iran.
Like the US it too has threatened to use nuclear weapons
Israel has violently defied the censure of the international community and continued with illegal settlements.
Iran's nuclear capabilities amount to no more than is necessary for energy production.
An independent international monitoring body has confirmed that this is so and that Iran is in line with the terms of Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty to which it is a signatory.
The US has repeatedly breached the terms of that same treaty.

This is a sickening litany of violence and lies by the world's super power. Millions more people will die, be injured or displaced if there is war in Iran. Russia and China and the Eastern countries are forming an alliance in response the the US threat. An invasion of Iran makes world war three a very likely consequence. After the evidence of Iraq what fool would trust an administration like Bush's with the organisation of a tea party. 1.2 million dead, 4 million at least displaced, civil war, infrastructure destroyed and US mercenaries on murderous rampages in the cities. Disabled and psychologically brutalised people everywhere.

What sort of barbarian world are we living in when a second such attrocity is planned while the first is ongoing?

Every other country in the world must be wondering whether it should arm to protect itself against the US. It's current government is the vilest we have ever seen.

by Sceptic Tue Sep 25, 2007 21:01

The USSR was the main arms supplier to Iraq. It was T 35 tanks and Migs and Soviet field artillery that the Iraqi army had – not US supplied Abrahms tanks or American planes or such like. In the 1980s the main US aid to Saddam was in the form of certain agricultural credits and the value of these was minuscule compared to all aid from elsewhere, especially the USSR and the Gulf States.

US Arsenal: The five declared NPT powers have large stocks of nuclear weapons. That is the system as it evolved through the UN structure and process. If you are going to blame the US for this you should equally blame the rest of the P5. There is no change in US nuclear doctrine. The US Government has not threatened to employ nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear power. Israel has never admitted having such weapons, let alone threatened to use them. The size of the arsenal is not the issue – it is who has them that counts. Thus one or two weapons in the hands of Saddam or Iran are much more dangerous than a thousand in the hands of the US. This is the consensus in the international community.

The US did not connive with the Iraqi attack on Iran – Saddam did it himself.

The Israeli government is freely elected – how is it supposed to be removed by Iran without menacing the people of Israel?

It is not a question of personalising this to GW Bush. Others are equally concerned and the issue is likely to be faced by the next President just as much. The EU Three are also concerned and France has been very outspoken of late. The idea is to prevent any war by deterring any Iranian possession of nuclear weapons by diplomatic pressure in the first instance. A breach of the peace in the region is thought to be much more likely with a nuclear powered Iran than without one. That is the rationale for the current diplomatic efforts at heading off an Iranian nuclear weapons threat.

Every country is NOT arming itself against the US as you put it. The other NATO members are not. Ireland is not. Jamaica is not. Mexico is not. One could go on.

by Jim O'Sullivan Tue Sep 25, 2007 21:13

Lets get a few facts

When Iraq invades Iran, the US opposes Security Council actions to condemn the invasion. This is a green light to Iraq to go full tilt.
US removed Iraq from the "nations supporting terrorism" list and begins to supply arms
The US uses Israel as a conduit in the arms supply and allows Israel itself to cash in and supply arms to Iraq
US provides intelligence to Iraq pinpointing Iranian troop movements.
Although Iraq had used chemical weapons, the US restores dipolmatic relations with Iraq.
The US navy is deployed in the Persian Gulf to support Iraq
While there they shoot down a civilian Iranian aircraft killing 300 passengers.

Not involved?

by Aragon Tue Sep 25, 2007 21:22

Alan Greenspan, the former head of the US Federal Reserve, says oil was the primary motive for the Iraq war. ...Greenspan was US Fed boss for 18 years. Mr Greenspan, one of America's most respected elder statesmen, said it was politically inconvenient to acknowledge the fact. The declaration is made in his memoirs, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, due to be published on Monday. The US and Britain have always maintained that the war to oust Saddam Hussein was about weapons of mass destruction - not oil. US President George Bush said Saddam was a threat to world security because he could sell the weapons on to terrorists.Advertisement But Mr Greenspan, a Republican who was boss of the US Federal Reserve for 18 years, said that was not the whole truth, according to a copy of the book seen by Associated Press. "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil," he is reported to have written. No WMD were found in Iraq after the war. Mr Greenspan is also critical of Mr Bush's financial policies. "My biggest frustration remained the president's unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending," Mr Greenspan wrote.

Link: http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1284299,00....html

These are the criticisms of an arch conservative. The exact same shit that Greenspan points to is now going down with Iran and another million people will die because of it. The world will be destablised.

by revolt Tue Sep 25, 2007 22:09

Free speech my hole.

Bollinger is another hypocrite on the neo-con payroll. Can you honestly say any other head of state would be treated in such a rude and arrogant way? The whole farce cum jerry sring show set up, made me sick to my stomach. None of what Admenijad said was taken into context and the only protesters were jewish americans themselves.

What about Saudi Arabia!? It commits more injustices and oppression on human rights issues and not a peep from the likes of the US state or bollinger on it. Why? because Saudi arabia and the bin laden family( best friends of the Bushes) run the place with their massive contracting firms and neo con new world order payroll.

Why is america and even its so called universities consistently infantile even on the basic issues? It would seem that even events such as these are carefully politically coreographed to be sold to the joe soap american idiot.

allah akbar!

by JohnHM Wed Sep 26, 2007 00:16

President of Iran, liar, murderer of Iranian women and boys, arch-terrorist, Ahmadinajad declared proudly and publicly, in his

disgraceful Columbia University address, " that there are no homosexuals in Iran."

You know why ?

Because he hangs them all !

Their only crime ? Being homosexual.

Recently executions took place in the Iranian city of Maashad of two late teenage men .

Ahmadinajad is not only a gay-basher. He is a gay-murderer.

by Denis MacEoin Wed Sep 26, 2007 00:29 maceoin at btinternet dot com

In response to Aragon's posting (and how many like him have swallowed this), let me as a lifelong Farsi speaker explain that Ahmadinezhad and other Iranian leaders have spoken of Israel in various terms, and the words theyt have used have amounted to 'erase', 'annihilate' and 'eradicate'. They don't refer to 'the Zionist regime', other than in the sense they use that or 'the Zionist entity' to mean Israel. They have made it clear that they are willing to accept the pay-back should they use nuclear weapons against Israel. They have financed and supplied Fajr 3 rockets for the use of Hizbullah, who fired thousands of them on northern Israel last year. Israel's enemies have tried military solutions since 1948, and are still doing so. Why would anyone think Ahmadinezhad, in a spirit of love and tolerance (something he does not even display towards his open people) would smile, open his arms wide, and ask the Israelis to just pop off somewhere else. It is their country, they have built it, they have been given it by the international community, and they have sacrificed a lot of innocent lives for it. They won't move. What do you see happening then? Mahmoud and buddies walking off into a sunset of nightingales and roses, reciting Hafez, and hoping God will smile on the Jewish people? Or another attempt at eradication?

by revolt - humanity Wed Sep 26, 2007 01:17

NO to the HOMOFACISTS. NO to anti-muslim homosexuals. Simple as that. Before I hear another ridiculous "Iran doesnt like gays" nonsense, take alook at saudi arabia and its repeated gay bashing and human rights violations. Where in fuck is the criticism for Saudi Arabia!? You fucking sophist neo-con whore.

WTFis this Denis McEoin character?. Heh, I like the "Mc" nice touch. Are you jewish? They you are clearly bias towards isreali aggression against palistine. 25,000 jews are allowed in Iran, perhaps these will die on an appending attack on Iran by israeli bombs. That would be irony worth seeing.

by Aragon Wed Sep 26, 2007 07:27

What exactly happenned in 1948? Were not the Palestinians made to 'pop off' in exactly the manner you falsely claim Ahmadenijad is now recommending for the Israelis? And on the basis of a religious theory which the Zionists are pursuing to this very day. Go read the old testament and look at what it says. Its like a military plan for what the Israeli's are now doing. Is that not the genesis of this whole situation? Ahmadenijad, however, is not recommending the wipe out of Israel - he wants to see the extremism known as Zionism eradicated. It's OK for Bush to talk about regime change but not for anyone else? Ahadenijad plays the US's own rhetoric right back at it as if to say - 'go on, see how you like it'. And of course the US has hissy fits - the neo cons go purple with rage at the impertinence.

Ahmadinejad has also repeatedly said that the trouble in the region should be resovled by the democratic will of ALL the people who live there, including the Israeli people.
When Palestine did exactly that just over a year ago, the US saw to it that their democratic will was violently punished. They funded and armed Israel to attack them and plunged the whole area into even worse poverty. The time was when the Israeli government was regarded as a terrorist entity too but then the US began to see possibilities for itself. That's when this already outrageous situation turned completely foul.

Israel has illegal nuclear weaponry. Iran does not! These facts alone betray the murderous hypocrisy of the US and Israel. Israel is basically ethnic cleanisng in Palestine in line with biblical recommendations.

by Jim O'Sullivan Wed Sep 26, 2007 08:18

Denis MacEoin says "let me as a lifelong Farsi" explain and then goes on to state, "They ( the Iranian nation) have made it clear that they are willing to accept the pay-back should they use nuclear weapons against Israel."

Regardless of your linguistic skills, propaganda ain't your game. For Iran to launch a nuclear attack on Israel would result in annihalation. To suggest that a country would embark on such a course is to suggest that they have little intelligence. But then again maybe Farsi speaking Denis knows more than the rest or is it just another case of a post with underlining racism.

by Aragon Wed Sep 26, 2007 09:23

Here are some of the texts they share devotion to - from the 5th book of Moses, Deuteronomy:

Deut. 12

1 These are the statutes and judgments, which ye shall observe to do in the land, which the LORD God of thy fathers giveth thee to possess it, all the days that ye live upon the earth.
2 Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree:
3 and ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place. Deut. 7.5

Deut. 14

2 For thou art a holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, Ex. 19.5, 6 · Deut. 4.20 ; 7.6 ; 26.18 · Tit. 2.14 · 1 Pet. 2.9 above all the nations that are upon the earth.

Deut. 19

1 When the LORD thy God hath cut off the nations, whose land the LORD thy God giveth thee, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their cities, and in their houses;
2 thou shalt separate three cities Josh. 20.1-9 for thee in the midst of thy land, which the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it.

Deut. 20

10 When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.
11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.
12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:
13 and when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
14but the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
15 Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations.
16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
17but thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Per'izzites, the Hivites, and the Jeb'usites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:
18 that they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God.
19 When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them: for thou mayest eat of them, and thou shalt not cut them down (for the tree of the field is man's life) to employ them in the siege:
20 only the trees which thou knowest that they be not trees for meat, thou shalt destroy and cut them down; and thou shalt build bulwarks against the city that maketh war with thee, until it be subdued.

by Language of Fear Wed Sep 26, 2007 10:27

Please, in the name of decency, no biblical quotations. it is hard enough to avoid the utilisation
of bibles to justify hatred and war by the mediocre, without having to read it when one awakes.
These words were collated in another time and place and for other purposes. Bibles are not
meant to be read literally. The essential problem there is that the US has provided for itself
a military coup based solely in a literalist's attempts to grasp politics. The Iranian situation is
more complex, because the Mullahs do not like their chosen leader, who has given them much
displeasure and he will be changed soon enough. You could spend all day buying into the fear
message , but you would be far better off just having a walk in the sunshine.

by Nodin Wed Sep 26, 2007 11:14

The fact is that - as an earlier poster pointed out - you wouldn't see this lynch mob awaiting the Saudis, who are an even more repressive, woman bashing, gay hating, jew loathing undemocratic state than Iran. On different issues, but no less brutal, are the Chinese. Yet we will wait for a ski holiday in hell before they have such a reception. His crime is not his rubbish (and it is rubbish) but being determined an "enemy" by the US state. This speech was an opportunity for the Americans to rant on about how "free" they are, while letting the Iranian PM hang himself with the rope supplied.

by Aragon Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:26

"Please, in the name of decency, no biblical quotations. it is hard enough to avoid the utilisation
of bibles to justify hatred and war by the mediocre, without having to read it when one awakes.
These words were collated in another time and place and for other purposes. Bibles are not
meant to be read literally. The essential problem there is that the US has provided for itself
a military coup based solely in a literalist's attempts to grasp politics. The Iranian situation is
more complex, because the Mullahs do not like their chosen leader, who has given them much
displeasure and he will be changed soon enough. You could spend all day buying into the fear
message , but you would be far better off just having a walk in the sunshine."

The quoted texts are the moral rationalisations which Christian and Ziionist fundamentalists rely on to justify the 'morality' of what they are doing. And they are doing it all, just as described. We'd be as well to know all this - to realise what we are actually appealing to in trying to stop this war. While many of the most virulent neo-cons don't actually give a shit about this stuff, (they're in it for the oil) they are more than happy to go along with the basket cases who do believe in all this stuff. A lethal combination.

by Frank Adam - private citizen Wed Sep 26, 2007 13:04 Prestwich, Lancs, UK

When Louis XIV invaded Holland (1672) he circulated the chancelries of Europe that the Dutch were worms and he was going to tread on them. Well stamping on anything soft and richly alive splashes very messily as the Arabs found out, but have not learned and inwardly digested since their 1948 adventure into wiping Israel off the map.

One would have thought the same for the USA after Iraq, and for Iran ditto. If you want to head off a US hot war over Iran at least publicise that the place is dependent on imported [mostly US] grain and [Australasian] meat so there are other ways of squabbling without shooting, casualties and capital damage!

It is not only Hitler's hair style that Ahmadinejad sports, but his medievally inaccurate obsesssions about Jews, Judaism and Israel. The Arab and Moslem World gets the Jews it deserves, same as bosses get the unions they deserve. Review every negotiating attempt since 1949 and note that every time they fall on the Arab parties' exceptional demands for their refugee families. Why should the Palestine Arabs be treated differently to the: Germans? the Indians and Pakistanis? the Ionian Greeks and Thracian Turks? or the Jews?

When are the tender conscience anti- imperialists of your column going to remember that the Arab and Moslem World is one of the four great imperialist successes alongside Rome, Spain and Britain; but while these three have moved on leaving their language, culture, engineering and law; jihadis are trying to re- run their medieval weltanschaung when nobody is going to put up with imperialism anymore - especially the anonymous bombing sort.

There is historical irony in that an your Irish journal oozes with Enlightenment indignation over rights and liberties generally, and of of small nations particularly, but has gone into high dudgeon over the stumping of the Arab World sixty year imperialism on Israel; and to seek to impose a Moslem pre- Enlightenment clerical World order on everybody else - that would relegate the Catholic liberties of Ireland to a far more strained position than ever penalised by the Protestant Ascendancy. As for Women's Lib .... forget it! Ditto free ranging education and enquiry! The Turks and Arabs refused to take up the printing press in the name of religion for over two hundred years. FDA

by Aragon Wed Sep 26, 2007 13:20

Thanks for the history lesson and for telling us what we knew already. This discussion is about this. threat of war as it threatens the people of Iran right now - 99.9% of whom have little or no influence on the decision whether or not to annihilate them. However much you don't like the Iranian government, it is these people who should be the first consideration. With that perspective firmly in mind it is worth examining the hypocrisy and dishonesty of those who want to commit a further genocide in yet another Middle Eastern country to wit: the US.

The ordinary people of the Iran are not to be overlooked so easily, we hope. That the Iranian government is not very nice is not the issue where this war is concerned. That past Iranian governments have not been very nice is not relevant either. On the other hand, the US, by deploying yet another bogus case for war draws international attention to its own record when it is clearly to be seen accusing others of things which it is much more guilty of itself.

Or are you merely saying, lets just slaughter them, they are all the same?

by Nodin Wed Sep 26, 2007 15:47

Wonderful stuff Frank. The usuall regurgitated justification for imperialism, trotted out with updates for the last hundred years.

When we see the Chinese, the Saudis and the Israelis get the same treatment, we might be less suspicous.

by Tech1.0 Wed Sep 26, 2007 16:15

I don't think it's as simplistic an either/or as that. 'Supporting' Iran as it is, is not supporting "Islamic fundamentalism" or Ahmadinejad, it is giving a chance to the country to evolve and develop along the lines that it chooses. This is consistent with left wing aims against imperialism and support of non-ideal colonised and brutalised groupings, leading to better outcomes in the long-run.
There are many examples of this - support for those who fought in the Irish war of Independence (the majority, conservative Catholics) was not inconsistent with such aims. It really should not need explanation...

And Iranian's are more than capable of improving their lot and moving towards what progressives and those on the left would prefer. To suggest otherwise is demeaning and not consistent with self-management and freedom of choice.

If it wasn't for such imperialist 'interventions' of the past we would not be where we are now. Remember when Iranians' elected Mossadegh after independence in the 50s?...we never hear about him on the mainstream media but what subverted Iran's development then was a coup against his government in 1953 and the imposition of the brutal dictatorship of the, US supported Shah, in its' stead.

Mossadegh's crime? He wanted Iranian oil to be owned by Iranians.

"There is no better way to govern Iran than Democracy and Social Justice!" - said Mohammad Mossadegh

http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/

http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/iran/index.htm

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

Long-run libertarian socialist aims will only be achieved when we fight against imperialism as a first course of action. Otherwise all our efforts at improving the lot of people in less powerful nations will be for nought, and we will implicitly support perennial conquest, abortive development and periodic neoliberal shock therapy. The latter outlined eloquently in Naomi Klein's new book, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism
http://www.naomiklein.org/main

by pat c Wed Sep 26, 2007 16:35

Heres an article by Iranian Socialist Yassamine Mather on recent developments. The full article is at the link.

It is easy to understand the logic behind US plans for attacking Iran. In the week when the military and the administration announced the coming withdrawal of over 30,000 troops from Iraq, at a time of major economic upheaval, what better way to divert attention from military, political and economic crises but the start of a new adventure? However, on the surface it seems difficult to understand the logic behind the determination of a section of Iran’s leadership to encourage such a conflict.

The reality is that, faced with dissent at home, anxiety at rising prices and fear of shortages caused by declared and unannounced sanctions, the Iranian government is as eager as the US administration to divert attention from its economic failures - branding all opposition to its medieval islamic laws as part of Bush’s plan for regime change from above.

Contrary to the regime’s intentions, attempts at silencing all opposition using the threat of war has backfired. Most Iranians are becoming increasingly impatient with the regime, blaming its ‘adventurist’ policies for sanctions, shortages and the threat of war. In fact, despite severe repression, the number of public protests has increased over the last few months, with many Iranians blaming the regime as much as the US for the hardships they face in their daily life.

by Aragon Wed Sep 26, 2007 17:08

...but do Iranian socialists want the US to invade them as they did Iraq? No socialiast, trades unionist, homosexual or woman will experience the least increase in democracy. Things will get worse as they have in Iraq and very many will be killed. Trades unionists and socialists are regarded as enemies by the US. The US does not instal democracies. It supports fascist juntas and dictatorships in virtually every country that it has done this to. Ask Chilean socialists what the US did to them? It gave Pinochet the names of more than 2,000 of the people they considered most 'dangerous' who were then disappeared. The same will happen in Iran. The US will put in place whoever is willing to administrate unimpeded access to oil and strategic advantage.

It's wild fantasy to imagine that there is an opportunity for socialism in this war, if anyone is seriously making that mistake. To say so out loud would be to put the lives of other people at risk - to persuade the US government that they have no opposition at all in the West to another genocide.

by Sceptic Wed Sep 26, 2007 17:42

Lets indeed get a few facts: (about the Iran Iraq war)

US Not involved?
I never said not involved but not involved as a major arms supplier - that was the USSR . As I say you don't get to choose your allies - they get chosen for you sometimes.

Israel as a conduit? That was arms for Iran.

US restores diplomatic relations with Iraq? As I recall it didn't as it
had not broken them.

The US navy is deployed in the Persian Gulf to support Iraq.
It didn't. It deployed its navy in the Gulf to defend neutral shipping from Iranian attack.

Plane: It was a wrong identification, an error in a war zone. US
apologised and compensated relatives. Iranians had some culpability for allowing the plane into that airspace in the first place. That was reckless folly.

When Iraq invades Iran, the US opposes Security Council actions to condemn the invasion. This is a green light to Iraq to go full tilt?
Not true - both sides were going "full tilt" at each other already.
There was a SC resolution at the outset of the war - see below. There was not an appetite in the international community for a condemnation which it was felt would be counter productive. Iraq would never have engaged with a UN process which had that language hence the entire UN option would be closed off for good as once a resolution is adopted it cannot be erased from the record. It worked out well eventually as the parties eventually ended the war on the basis of this and other SC resolutions.

US removed Iraq from the "nations supporting terrorism" list....
This is not a very unusual move and to reiterate it was in accordance with the western and Gulf Cooperation Council states that Iran not defeat Iraq, even if the distaste for Saddam was strong. In any case Saddam had reduced his terror involvement - Abu Nidal had been expelled from Baghdad in the early 1980s (he became a mercenary terrorist in Syria first then Libya) and other Iraqi state terrorism directed against the west had declined from 1982 onwards. So there was a bona fide reduction in Iraqi but also a relative reduction as Iranian, Syrian and Libyan terrorism was becoming more of a threat - it was not therefore a cynical move. The gas attacks on the Kurds did not take place until 1988 when the war was almost over.

Sharing intelligence photos with the Iraqis
This did happen but only to bring the war to an end. Khomeini was very obdurate about ending the war - when his advisors could show him the US was assisting the Iraqis it was enough even for him to call it a day. The US did tilt to Iraq but it tilted away from him again once the war was over. But the immediate priority at the time was to end it.

by pat c Wed Sep 26, 2007 17:47

"but do Iranian socialists want the US to invade them as they did Iraq?"

No. Thats quite obvious from the article so I cannot understand why you are raising such a red herring.

"Trades unionists and socialists are regarded as enemies by the US. "

They are also regarded as enemies by the Iranian Government. If you even bothered to read the article you would be aware of this.

"It's wild fantasy to imagine that there is an opportunity for socialism in this war, if anyone is seriously making that mistake."

So you know better than an Iranian Socialist. You always are humble.

" To say so out loud would be to put the lives of other people at risk - to persuade the US government that they have no opposition at all in the West to another genocide."

Aragon, you are obviously not stupid so why do you write this nonsense? You know Yassamine is opposed to any US aggression. HOPI makes it clear that it opposes any US aggression. How could the US government believe that it had no opposition?

What motivates you to misrepresent and twist the words of Iranian Anti Imperialist Socialists?

by moral fibre, fraid to look & snoring Wed Sep 26, 2007 18:42

Years back I wrote here that if people could pronounce Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's name properly he'd be a household name. I wrote many times that he had the west by the "psychic pubes". He's tweaked those pubes so many times that I've come to see him as one of the most capable & astute political leaders who have emerged this century.
our little hebrew again that most peoples' computers don't see -
אנגלית

That doesn't mean I admire him or support him. IF so I wouldn't have been so emphatic in the line "neither US imperialism or Islamic fundamentalism". If it helps people avoid the little hebrew word yet sleep well at night - I also think Cheney and Rumsfeld are amongst the most capable & astute political leaders to emerge during the Cold war & bring the military industrial complex from its post WW2 birth to distributing Whoppers in Iraq today. I don't admire them, nor do I under or over estimate them. They are two sides - one is US imperialism and the other has moved in the vacuum of credibility to voice the prejudices, aspirations & anger of many millions of muslims whilst also forging key economic and diplomatic relations which stretch as far as South America to the far East.

The day you went out to protest against the war beginning ( & I hope you did ) you set off on a road which I then believed (and still do) will last a generation. The day the war began, late and in different ways to how it would have been had you not protested - it was bound to stop. I'll make it simple - the war will stop. The war is stopping. But for the war to stop - much must fall into place & within that many must emerge to play roles - to take their parts. The Iranians have done so. The left wing & libertarians of Israel recognises the deep meaning of last year's war. It's shocking so many in Ireland don't see the wood for the trees. They now know that Ahmadinejad has them by the psychic pubes & has each & everyone of you by them as well.

today's links for you to peruse - a right wing columnist from the Isreali Haaretz takes on the world class phenomena which is Ahmadinejad.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?ite...art=1

English transcript of Ahmadinejad at Columbia University
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20....html

Video (needs real player)
http://www.worldleaders.columbia.edu/video/wlf07_ahmadi...d.ram
the illustration by one of cyber pals first appeared on this site during a running "antiwar" joke on cups of tea in my article "Knowing which side they bread be buttered : Iran" http://indymedia.ie/article/74152


Mark my words our next generation will find us pondering the emergence of Ahmadinejad.

But don't be Afraid! For we that is each & everyone of you & I
- emerged too.
Long may we Emerge!
Neither US Imperialism or Islamic Fundamentalism!

you will have a cup of tea - you now know his name

by Jim O'Sullivan Wed Sep 26, 2007 20:09

Sceptic, firstly it's very important to put this whole thing into context-the conflicts are occurring in the Mid east and not on or near US territory. Should the US be involved in this area at all is a valid quesition that must first be addressed.

Regarding other pionts,
"I never said not involved but not involved as a major arms supplier - that was the USSR . As I say you don't get to choose your allies - they get chosen for you sometimes."

You said that the Us was at peace. Everyone knows that the US has not been at peace and is involved in everything that happens in the region.

"Israel as a conduit? That was arms for Iran."

The US and her allies were in fact arming both sides.

"US restores diplomatic relations with Iraq? As I recall it didn't as it
had not broken them."

You are wrong, check again.

"The US navy is deployed in the Persian Gulf to support Iraq.
It didn't. It deployed its navy in the Gulf to defend neutral shipping from Iranian attack."

Wrong again In 1987 the US sent the Navy into the persian gulf to take Iraq's side in the conflict.

"Plane: It was a wrong identification, an error in a war zone. US
apologised and compensated relatives. Iranians had some culpability for allowing the plane into that airspace in the first place. That was reckless folly. "

This is absurd nonsense. Why should a sovereign State restrict it's activitiy in it's own region? Blaming Iran for the downing of the aircraft demonstrates very clearly that you are incapable of making an honest assessment of these matters.

"When Iraq invades Iran, the US opposes Security Council actions to condemn the invasion. This is a green light to Iraq to go full tilt? Not true - both sides were going "full tilt" at each other already."

The fact is that the US opposed any Security Council action to condemn the invasion and therefore reduced the internatiuonal community to bystanders,.

"US removed Iraq from the "nations supporting terrorism" list....- it was not therefore a cynical move."

After all the US can do no wrong, can it?

"Sharing intelligence photos with the Iraqis
This did happen but only to bring the war to an end. Khomeini was very obdurate about ending the war - when his advisors could show him the US was assisting the Iraqis it was enough even for him to call it a day. The US did tilt to Iraq but it tilted away from him again once the war was over. But the immediate priority at the time was to end it."

Slight agreement here. And I bet that the "immediate priority" to end the war was because it was causing problems for the US economy etc. not because of the appalling slaughter that was being caused by the weaponery that the US had poured into the conflict.

by Aragon Wed Sep 26, 2007 20:42

Aragon said

"It's wild fantasy to imagine that there is an opportunity for socialism in this war, if anyone is seriously making that mistake."

Pat c replied

"So you know better than an Iranian Socialist. You always are humble."

Pat

It's just an opinion pat - an opinion based on what has happened to all socialist movements in all of the countries the US has directly invaded or the socialist leaning governments they have covertly undermined. The US hates socialism - its foreign policy is predicated on eliminating it. It is intent on invading Iran - I am expressing an entirely legitimate, quantifiable opinion on what is likely to happen to Iranian socialists and socialism in that event - based on all the evidence we have to date.

You have misread my post - I said it would be a pity if anyone thought this war was an opporunity for socialism - not that anyone here had actually said that. But it is an idea that some on the so-called 'cruise missile left' do seem to have embraced.

by art critic Wed Sep 26, 2007 21:14

The 3 images on this page say so much yet rely on so little text. The first at the top of the page was the result of computer image manipulation software which in the last number of years have become widely available. Its brazilian creator had hoped to express dichotomies - seeing and not seeing, wanting to see yet not being able. We don't know if he shields his eyes in fear or weariness from a world he can't forget, the combination of eyes, the forms of the face which are amongst the first forms we learn to recognise in life together with the backs of the hands which we also learn indicate withdrawl or defense cause us disquiet. That disquiet or paradox is the key to how the image works as much a psychological as aesthetic plane. The second image shows us caricatures of 2 global leaders where there is a clear similiarity in exaggeration of the features of the two men The main characteristic which sets charicature apart from other representational art, drawing or sketches is the exaggeration rather than faithful depiction of features most often facial. The artist has taken the eyes and nose of both Bush & Ahmadinejad & drawn them the same way, the textual clue of the Iraqi leader's name on the desk or his presence in the Iranian's jacket pocket is almost un-needed.
The last cartoon by Steve Bell of the "Stop war"steering comittee and Guardian newspaper also plays on these facial similiarities but typically for Bell's work is much wittier than first appears. The text and logo are seen at first glance as obvious references to the "international atomic energy authority" with its well known logo of the "Rutherford Atomic model" which despite it s inaccuracy caught the public's semiotic vocabulary better than other diagrams of the smallest buildig blocks of material reality. The viewer from Ireland might remember Mrs Doyle & her constant offering of tea whilst reading the caption and muse on Steve Bell's adjustment of the "rutherford" to only include the accepted symbols of 3 world religions. Those 3 being Christianity, Judaism and Islam. The message is clear, Bush speaks for the cross whilst Ahmadinejad speaks for the crescent. However, what makes me a smug little know-it-all lecturing hectoring type is the reminder that though the symbols of wicca, buddha, hinduism nor masonry are not present in the cartoon - there is one other "faith related" logo which finds it way on to the US military's gravestones in Arlington. I refer of course to the symbol of atheists and agnostics which is the rutherford model of the atom.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Atheism
We mostly don't need to be reminded that the framework of morality & cultural understanding which underlies our view of history or current politics is in Ireland & the EU no longer shaped by faith based notions. We even see such a triumph of the enlightenment as a greatness which sets us apart from the creationist fundamentalist christians of the mid USA who like their fundamentalist foes in Iran (& the world Iran now speaks for) will allow no boy on boy or girl on girl action. But mark my arrogant little words - what is more important to this generation & the future of the XXI century is not the how & where & why of the Iraq/Iran world, but how the .:. enlightenment has finally extended her light to all religious faiths. Where there is injustice no religious creed may soon alone offer remedy.
אנגלית
try & see the wood for the trees ;-)

by Aragon Wed Sep 26, 2007 21:41

Which is all a long way of saying that it's worth killing them all?

by gosimeon Wed Sep 26, 2007 23:27

Okay here's a man the hangs gay children, denies the Holocaust happened (all Jewish lies), and wants to destroy a nation and it's population, he also happens to preside over a brutal dictatorship regime; to name but a few of his most famous exploits.

He was denies a visit to the 9-11 site on safety grounds due to work being carried out there; nobody is allowed to the site for the moment - he wasn't treated any differently.

The US Government did not try to stop him going to the US on UN business.

The original article goes on about how America's the land of free speech supposedly etc. Well. Yes. It is. Those that don't want this guy visiting and perfectly entitled to do so. Free speech works both ways. It is Iran that prosecutes those who think and feel differently brutally. Don't give this buy and sympathy. Bush and Co might not be angels, but at least they don't publicly hang you if you happen to not follow Islamic law.

by Tech1.0 Thu Sep 27, 2007 00:21

...such misconstruing of others' arguments by a PD supporter ( from http://www.politics.ie http://www.politics.ie/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=8967 ) such as gosimeon .

"Bush and Co might not be angels, but at least they don't publicly hang you if you happen to not follow Islamic law. "

No, only if you're black and poor will you be that unfortunate. But that's a different, more amenable form of death (as in being bombed from a great height is always such a delight) But strictly speaking yes they now save that for the house of Saud and other outsourced low tech demonology. Although personally I'd prefer hanging to the loss of my mind through torture.

The Darkest Corner of the Mind
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/12/12/1035/

"It is Iran that prosecutes those who think and feel differently brutally."

What a great example of the use of, eh "freedom of speech "* to prepare the ground so that an entire people can wait in preparation for their imminent Shock Therapy to a better form of brutality.
If only we all followed this example of the misuse of language, why then we could avail of even more blood-for-flights round Shannon way. And, indeed, the Iranians could have a taste of American freedom. Again.(apres 1953 version)

*
Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media
http://tinyurl.com/yvzrvl

Ah well I suppose we can expect less hangings apres the impending invasion/coup. Well hangings at least...

More than 1,000,000 Iraqis murdered since 2003 invasion
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1189751998.html
Poll suggests 1.2m violent deaths in Iraq since 2003
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2007/09/poll-suggests-12....html

by pat c Thu Sep 27, 2007 10:17

Who are the "cruise missile left"?

Yassamine and HOPI oppose all US aggression against Iran. Is Socialism on the cards in Iran? I dont know, that will be determined by the struggle. But you should not be suprised if an Iranian Socialist favours the establishment of a Socialist Iran.

The one fact that you should not ignore is that workers, students, women and national minorities are protesting against the Iranian Junta at the moment. Is your only answer to them that they must not criticise the Iranian Junta?

You can oppose US Imperialism and also oppose the Iranian Junta.

US Imperialism is calling for sanctions against the Burmese Junta and is calling for regime change there. Do you consequently support the Burmese Junta? I think not. You realise that democratic protestors calling for internal regime change should be supported against a dictatprship. Why not adopt the same position towards Iran

by Aragon Thu Sep 27, 2007 11:05

You're construing something in what I said that isnt there at all. Of course I support an Iranian socialist wanting to see socialism in Iran. All Im arguing is that this war, on all the evidence, wont achieve it or expdite it in any way.

Politics is littered with left wing people who embraced the idea of war - their pricniples didn't survive it though. Look at all the former anti nuclear bomb people that populated Blair's cabinets?

by pat c Thu Sep 27, 2007 11:10

But why are you raising those examples in response to Yassamines and my comments? HOPI are totally opposed to any war. We support regime change from within from below. The Iranian people will decide the nature of their government. The Iranian People are on the streets at present protesting against the Iranian Junta. The Iranian people have just as much right to get rid of a dictatorship as the Burmese people do.

by Socialism in context Thu Sep 27, 2007 11:18

Aragon this is about survival and the right to protest. I do not think that people who are being
beaten and murdered by any oppressive regime really thinks about what colour their politics
are- I don't think that the people who are oppressed in the America's (north and south) formulate
political theories with a gun against their head. The issue is dignity- and removal of oppression
and beneath the theoreticians and educated socialists there are people who just want to
avoid violence and feed their children- who don't want war- who reject posturing.

If we stand in solidarity with these people we cannot project an ideality or a theory
of how to make the world better for them- cos its not listening-

for every -one- theorist , there are thousands who want bread and reject leadership
they want to hear that they have the basics- thats fear!

Think global, act local. You must address the ills in your own locale and society before
attempting to solve the world's problems- do you speak when you witness oppression?

by Aragon Thu Sep 27, 2007 12:17

I don't see how one word I've written contradicts any of that. As you say, when we are worried about bread and butter and finding a means to survive, we don't reach for a copy of Capital for solutions to the immediate problems.

Within the logic of the US case for war, the Iranian government is being accused of things it did not do. The people who will pay the price of these US lies are the people of Iran, above all others. To say so is not to excuse the Iranian government of anything that it is guilty of otherwise.

by himself Thu Sep 27, 2007 15:04

How base and pathetic of a university president to
invite Ahmadinejad and then use this as an
opportunity to endear himself in the eyes of the
establishment by insulting the very guest he
invited.

The president of a university should show some
intellectual independence and be a neutral
arbitror. Instead of accusing and repeating media
lies, Bollinger should have mentioned this as an
opportunity to lessen the divide and
misunderstanding between Iran and the US. Dialogue
is the first step to peace, not the other way
around.

Very much indecent and vulgar. Columbia
University's reputation has been tarnished by its
president's comments.

That's the power of money talking out of
Bollinger's mouth.

by gosimeon Thu Sep 27, 2007 16:39 mark at mindless dot com Newbridge 0857200632

Apologies. I forgot that because I have a politicial affiliation other than yours I couldn't possibly say anyhing with any foundation...

What facts have i misconstrued? I'll post up the picture of hung Iranian kids if you want.

Did I say I was ever for the war on Iraq? I think what's going on their is a catastrophe at the moment. I took part in the Bush Out march alongside thousands of others a few years back; as I found his war dispicable, So don't get all high and mighty because I'm a PD, you closed-minded muppet.

You seem to imply that black people are put through the same treatment in America that your buddy in Iran puts homosexuals and non-Muslims through. Well I think you'll find in Bushes America homosexuals are not hung, nor are those who don't oblige with the laws of the national religion. As for war ethics; the Iranian dictator has clearly indicated he have little or no regard for such ethics - he wants to "wipe" a nation off the map sure! President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told an audience in Teheran that "Israel must be wiped off the map" and threatened Muslim countries that recognized Israel. Ahmadinejad told the audience at the same conference that the "new wave" of Palestinian attacks would destroy Israel, that Muslim countries that made peace with Israel would "burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury" and that a world without the US and Israel would be possible, as reported by Iran's government controlled propoganda machine IRNA.

As I said, Bush is no angel and has done plenty wrong. However, the fact that you are so accommodating of this guy and his evil remige illustrates that you have no ability to draw any rational, balanced opinion. Your brain seems to respond positively to those who hate what you obviously hate, ie., the US and Israel. However, you are supportive of a dictator who imposes a totalitarian, autocratic regime on the people of Iran; one that hangs homosexuals of any age and enforced with stones the precise laws on Islam.

If you had a choice to go to the US or Iran, you know where you would go. In the USA and west in general free-speach exists. In Iran, bloggers who write negatively about the Iranian government are often imprisoned without trial. Yet you support Iran over the USA.

I'm quiet happy I'm sane enough to disagree with you totally.

by revolt Thu Sep 27, 2007 22:34

Iran anyday. Less crime, less violence, smarter(and nicer) people and everything is cheaper than the states. I know this from first hand experience.

by gosimeon Thu Sep 27, 2007 23:17

emigrate.

Hope you're well up on your Koran and don't mind the local soccer stadium being used to hang the odd gay or two.

by revolt Fri Sep 28, 2007 05:39

Well, by your blantant ignorance it shows you've never been there. Neo-cons can make up any black propaganda they wish, but dont push your bullshite on the people.
Go there on holidays, the country is for the native peoples of Iran, whom still retain a homely hospitality, lost in this day and age. Plus there is more cultural significance in each square foot of ancient perisa then in all americas history trice over. Oh but I forgot , you n'cons believe history has already ended, if fukiyomama has any say.

You talk about phantom murders going on, well I tell you this. I'd feel safer in Iran right now then an american "liberated one" . At least in the former I have a chance of survival and a prosperous life.

by Aragon Fri Sep 28, 2007 08:50

A few unaswered questions and facts notably missing from the screaming media narrative in the west

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

by pat c Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:19

There has been some confusion regarding the text of Ahmadinejad's Remarks At Columbia University . One of the versions going around over the last few days was in fact the text of a speech he made in 2005.

Counter Currents now supply the full 2007 text at the link below.

by Sceptic Sat Sep 29, 2007 11:03

Revolt,
The stories of hangings of vulnerable people in Iran are not made up by "neocons". They really do happen and you will find independent verification on Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch sites. Link below is to the BBC of one case of a hanged teenage girl. Since Mr. Ahmadinejad has taken over he has pursued a very hard line not just on transgressions against Sharia but against his political opponents. Student protestors have been executed ostensibly for Sharia transgression. That you yourself visited Iran and was impressed is not convincing that all is well. A western foreigner on a visit is in a privileged position. No crime might be a plus but neither was their crime under Saddam. Totalitarianism or repressive government drives out crime but also personal and political liberty. Nor does an admiration for Iran's antiquities impress in the current context – most of them are pre-Islamic and in any case a rich historical heritage does not guarantee anything - ancient splendour does not equate or lead to modern enlightened Government, tolerance or societal richness. Egypt is repressive and economically poor despite its own pre Islamic heritage. Greece and Turkey are hardly nations of the first rank despite their rich heritages. It depends on where the locus of civilisation was at a particular time. The US is in fact rich in history but you must allow for its recent history. The ancient civilians of America were in Central and South America and while impressive these were well behind the European and Middle Eastern civilisations at the time of classical antiquity when first discovered.

by revolt Sat Sep 29, 2007 15:12

I agree with "ancient splendour does not equate or lead to modern enlightened Government, tolerance or societal richness" because Israel is a shining example of it. Dogmatic zionism (based on ancient repressive beliefs) is not only an israeli problem but an american one too and these are from so called "enlightened" secular countries.
There is no liberty in the USA anymore, not at all. The patriot act and the "hate bill amendant" have destroyed all such thing as liberty. It's also odd how there can be open debate on such taboo subjects as the holocaust in Iran, yet it is a crime in america to discuss such.
So the factual state murder of convicts in the USA is considered legitimate but not in any other country. "But these people in america are all dissenters and terrorists so they should be killed" . Hangings and murder in Iraq are commanplace under american "liberation" as is execution in Afghanistan and over 1,000,000 civilian deaths in Iraq. The same and much worse is to be expected when the americans try to liberate "Iran". It is laughable for the usa to play the moral high ground when it has commited the worst atrocities of this century. Of course China and Saudi Arabia whom are far worse n crime and punishment then Iran, fall on deaf ears because america has decided so, nothing more.
As for your masonic enlightment nonesense. My politics are post-modern, in that I intimately see the destruction modernism brings to traditional societies breaking them down and atomising whole communities to an ultimate de-humanisation of the people. Where life now is no sacred meaning and is considered less valuable then before. This is where the past can offer a rich synthesis and pave the way for a more meaningful future where the people have a spiritual bond to their own nation,customs and uniue destiny . Modernism destroys all of this and cannot provide an alternative and never has. Although ancient civilisations run in cycles , in that they come and go, is its tradition that helps to link those ages into an organic cohesiveness. None of this is neccessarly islamic, judeac or christian although each one has been used to substitute mans spiritual vaccuum in post modern revolutionary countries. Just like american cia placed the masonic shah in the iranian government after formenting a bloody revolution in the country now they are attempting to do the same again.

by Sceptic Sat Sep 29, 2007 15:42

Revolt,
The topic was Iran so how we got to modernism and Masonic themes I don't know. You should take your next holiday in the US, attend some demos and political rallies, read the press and you will find that that there is a good deal of freedom still there. The issue re capital punishment is whether it is imposed for religious reasons or just for serious felonies. In the US it is the latter only. In Iran the clergy are the government including the judiciary. If you hanker back to pre modernism you can still capture much of it by living in remote and traditional communities and not leading a consumerist life style. Most people want modernity and cities however and your atheism is an aspect of modernism not traditionalism.

In fairness to Israel though it was a source civilization - it was never a splendid one and the Romans did a good job of ruining Jerusalem. It has no comparison with the great sites of antiquity like Luxor or Isfahan.

by Aragon Sat Sep 29, 2007 16:10

Sceptic wrote

"The ancient civilians of America were in Central and South America and while impressive these were well behind the European and Middle Eastern civilisations at the time of classical antiquity when first discovered. "

From Howard Zinn's Peoples History of America:

Arawak men and women, naked, tawny, and full of wonder, emerged from their villages onto the island's beaches and swam out to get a closer look at the strange big boat. When Columbus and his sailors came ashore, carrying swords, speaking oddly, the Arawaks ran to greet them, brought them food, water, gifts. He later wrote of this in his log:

They ... brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things, which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks' bells. They willingly traded everything they owned... . They were well-built, with good bodies and handsome features.... They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance. They have no iron. Their spears are made of cane... . They would make fine servants.... With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.

Very civilised.

by Tech1.0 Sat Sep 29, 2007 17:43

I'm afraid you've just made my case for me gosimeon. I think this is either largely down to your inability to understand the point I was making or a lack of nuance leading to a black/white political perspective -- probably a mixture of both.

"You seem to imply that black people are put through the same treatment in America that your buddy in Iran puts homosexuals and non-Muslims through. Well I think you'll find in Bushes America homosexuals are not hung, nor are those who don't oblige with the laws of the national religion. "

Er no, that's incorrect. What I explicitly wrote was if you are black and poor then you are more likely to be put to death by the state in the US. Whether it's hanging or not it is irrefutable that the US is one of the most ardent users of the death penalty. (in fact the US only
introduced universal suffrage in 1965 because of the disenfranchisement of the blacks. It was the last of the 'developed' nations to do so)
But this is not to say that homosexuals are hung in the US it is merely to enter some much needed complexity into an argument comparing apples and pears and to add to what I was saying in my earlier post. i.e. if the elected democratic socialist and secularist Mossadegh had not been brutally removed by the US/UK supported coup then the development of Iran is likely to have not been regressed onto the unfortunate flag of rebellion that is Islam.
Unfortunately that is where we are. But to ensure that Iran moves and develops away from this it is paramount that further imperialist coups and war of conquest and exploitation (now known as 'decent' liberal interventions) are prevented. What you did was to compare country A (developed) with country B (developing) and ignored how B got to its position in a large part because of country A! It's just simplistic trash.

"Did I say I was ever for the war on Iraq? I think what's going on their is a catastrophe at the moment. I took part in the Bush Out march alongside thousands of others a few years back; as I found his war dispicable, So don't get all high and mighty because I'm a PD, you closed-minded muppet."

I'm happy you're opposed to the war in Iraq but I have to say surprised, as any cursory look at your postage history on politics.ie would have suggested otherwise. Also, you must be in a minority within your party because your party are the most gungho supporters of facilitating the war in Iraq for the good of the Irish economy via Shannon. I find that rarther incongruous with a position opposed to the war. But either way I don't see anything wrong with pointing out the political position of a contributor to a public debate.

"As for war ethics; the Iranian dictator has clearly indicated he have little or no regard for such ethics - he wants to "wipe" a nation off the map sure!"

That was a mistranslation. Ahmadinejad was referring to the Zionist regime, not Israel. Strictly speaking, I wouldn't classify Iran as a
dictatorship (it lessens the term such as calling Bush a Nazi say) more a highly flawed authoritarian pseudo-democracy.

"As I said, Bush is no angel and he has done plenty wrong. However, the fact that you are so accommodating of this guy and his evil remige illustrates that you have no ability to draw any rational, balanced opinion. Your brain seems to respond positively to those who hate what you obviously hate, ie., the US and Israel. However, you are supportive of a dictator who imposes a totalitarian, autocratic regime on the people of Iran; one that hangs homosexuals of any age and enforced with stones the precise laws on Islam."

I'm not supportive of Ahmadinejad, I never said I was. I support the Iranian peoples' right to choose but I think that the reason you think I'm in support of him is down to your black and white psyche. My position is at one with the majority of Iranian progressives looking for reform in Iran. Again the foreign policy positions of the US (and the EU) is contrary to those interested in change within Iran, and many of the accepted 'reformist' candidates such as former President Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani * are far from ideal.

*
The U.S. and Iran: Democracy, Terrorism, and Nuclear Weapons
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/173
In Iran, real political power rests with unelected military, economic, and right-wing ideologues, and in the June 25 runoff election, Iranian voters were forced to choose between two flawed candidates. The relatively liberal contender came across as an out-of-touch elitist, and his ultraconservative opponent was able to assemble a coalition of rural, less-educated, and fundamentalist voters to conduct a pseudopopulist campaign based on promoting morality and value-centered leadership. Such a political climate should not be unfamiliar to American voters.

Of course, Washington did not provide the Iranians with much incentive to elect another relative progressive to lead their country. Since the 1997 election of the outgoing reformist President Mohammed Khatami, the United States has strengthened its economic sanctions against Iran and has even threatened military attack. Although most Iranians would like improved relations with the United States, they apparently got the message that U.S. hostility toward their country would continue whomever they chose as president.

[...]

"The Bush administration has attempted to use the flawed election process in the Islamic Republic of Iran to further isolate that country and discredit its government. Yet, despite a call by some U.S.-based exiles for a boycott, more than two-thirds of Iran’s eligible voters went to the polls during the first round, a higher percentage than in recent U.S. presidential elections.

Many, though not all, reform-minded candidates were prevented from running, and since President Khatami was unable to significantly liberalize the political system, unelected ultraconservative clerics are still capable of dominating Iran. Despite these very real limitations, however, the election campaign was utilized by the growing pro-democracy movement to encourage greater political discourse and to deepen popular involvement in the civic process.

[....]

A look at most other U.S. allies in the region does not offer much inspiration for those desiring greater freedom and democracy, either. There are no competitive elections for president, for prime minister, or for any kind of legislature that can initiate and pass meaningful laws and make real policy in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, or Azerbaijan, even though these autocratic governments are bolstered by U.S. military and economic aid. Indeed, the majority of U.S.-allied governments in the region are even less democratic than Iran.

At least the ruling Iranian government does not massacre demonstrators by the hundreds or boil dissidents to death, as does the U.S-backed Karimov regime in Uzbekistan. Nor do current Iranian leaders usurp most of the nation’s riches and restrict political power to a single extended family, like the U.S.-backed family dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and the other sheikdoms of the Arabian Peninsula. And Iranian voters were spared election day brutalities like those in Egypt under the U.S.-backed Mubarak dictatorship, where police recently escorted pro-government thugs to attack a group of women who dared to hold a nonviolent protest in support of greater political freedom.

Yet only Iran, not these U.S.-backed dictatorships, endures President Bush’s complaints that power is in the hands of “an unelected few.”2 Echoing his selective criticism, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice challenges the legitimacy of the Iranian elections, because female candidates were barred from the presidential race, but she praises the far more restrictive local council elections in Saudi Arabia, where women, unlike in Iran, were not even allowed to vote.3"



"Yet you support Iran over the USA."

You're a child no matter where you post aren't you?

by Tech1.0 Sat Sep 29, 2007 18:01

A look at the actual video of the interview is required for an analysis of this visit to Columbia.
The Farsi mistranslation was already mention but not the lack of similar treatment of other heads of state, -- imagine the kid gloves treatment used if it was say Putin? And the same treatment would be used against visits from the long list of more autocratic regimes in the region who just so happen to be US allies ( Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, or Azerbaijan etc).
The nuclear issue is a non-entity as nobody has found Iran to be making them. Iran has no nuclear weapons and the IAEA has found no evidence that its nuclear activities are for anything other than peaceful purposes.

http://www.village.ie/world/europe/nuclear_double_stand...ards/

Negotiations with the EU

Iran entered into negotiations with the EU about its nuclear facilities in October 2003. (To be precise, Iran entered into negotiations with UK, France and Germany, who have been acting on behalf of the EU, including Ireland). Iran had no obligation to negotiate with the EU on what is an internal matter, but it did.

.....

It is important to note that this suspension was a voluntary act of goodwill on the part of Iran while negotiations were taking place. As the Paris Agreement itself stated, "The E3/EU recognize that this suspension is a voluntary confidence building measure and not a legal obligation... In the context of this suspension, the E3/EU and Iran have agreed to begin negotiations, with a view to reaching a mutually acceptable agreement on long term arrangements."

To say, as the EU does in its statement of 12 January, that Iran has breached the Paris agreement by restarting suspended activities is misleading. "A mutually acceptable agreement on long term arrangements" had not been reached, so it is entirely reasonable for Iran to voluntarily resume what it voluntarily suspended.

EU in breach of Paris Agreement?

A case can be made for saying that the EU, and not Iran, is in breach of the Paris Agreement. The latter says, "The E3/EU recognise Iran's rights under the NPT exercised in conformity with its obligations under the Treaty, without discrimination."

One of Iran's rights under the NPT is, of course, the right to engage in nuclear activities for peaceful purposes. The Paris agreement anticipated that long-term arrangements "will provide objective guarantees that Iran's nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes".

However, the EU proposals of August 2005 do not suggest any such "objective guarantees". Instead, they demand that Iran abandon key aspects of its nuclear programme, aspects which Iran is entitled to engage in under the NPT, providing they are for peaceful purposes."

so that leaves the uranium enrichment and the NPT allows this (see the articles* below) despite the blatant double standards, spin and poker-playing of both the EU and US. Indeed it is worth pointing out that most progressives in Iran support a civilian nuclear programme -- unfortunately it's a question of national pride to them. If you talk to progressives and reformers and students in Iran the majority will tell you they have the right to a nuclear programme. The US actually recommended to their dictator the Shah that they should build one in the 70s when the price of oil was high. Of course it would have been built by Becthel.

We must not forget the ongoing US support of Mujahedeen Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups in Iran (and via Iraq) and +vitally+ on how Ahmadinejad was not questioned substantially on any of the internal repression issues, Iran's foreign policy with respect to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Russia.

Nobody questioned him on any of this! Why? Because that's not what the mainstream media and US elites are interested in. Sure get the left distracted by the drumbeat of over amplification and focusing on internal repression etc (always towards the chosen victim du jour not the worse allied regimes) but the uncomfortable fact is, is that US would be more than happy to see a much more fundamentalist pro-US dictatorship (akin to Saudi Arabia), in control in Iran. So we don't want to go too far with that line in the mainstream!

*

by revolt Sat Sep 29, 2007 19:07

The history of the current middle east cannot be discussed without the issues of oil and the masonic kingdoms that were created and planted there to rule by the western banking families. The US is on the brink of becomming a totalitarian police state. All the laws and infastructure are in place waiting for the moment(ie, another planned terror attack) to declare marshall law and Enforce the draconian laws passed recently bush & Co. There have been arrests of dissendents across the board for the most minor offences and grass roots politics still despite all have no say in government and now seems never will. Thoughtcrime is already here.

America follows a bunch of confused ideologies , namely a bolshevised marxian dogma, mixed with a fervent evangelical zionist bigotry with a free trade destructive capitalism and an inverted "democracy" of self-righteous hot wind to boot.
Capital punishment is not justified under any ideology , secular or faith based. Any act of terror can be justified under "serious felonys". Those executed in Iran also commited "serious felonys" as its leader will tell you and not because they thought any differently. America has lost all moral authority and I suppose the colateral murder of 1,000,000 people in Iraq is justified under "serious felonys".

I reckon if most people burdened with ursurious debt and taxes knew an alternative to the emptiness of consumerism and corporate wage slavery they would take it. They are not however shown or given examples of such, because to do so would destroy the nilihist capitalist system of exploitation. No people, small town or community is safe from this now and only until american state falls and the globalist exploiters are burned out can we realise an alternate to what will be a golbal totalitarian tyranny.
On a last note,I don't consider myself an atheist(nor am I judeo-christian or muslim) and of course what made the holy land great in its heyday was not irreducible to judaism.

by Sceptic Mon Oct 01, 2007 20:56

Aragon,
In referring to the Mesoamerican civilisations I was referring to
civilisations in a broad sense, not in terms of humane behaviour,
absence of slavery etc. That idea of civilised behaviour had to wait until the enlightenment in the 18th century or at least its mainstreaming. There were churchmen who protested the treatment of the natives by the Spanish from the earliest days and they eventually had an impact on imperial policies. The Mesoamericans were millennia behind the west technologically in not having adopted the wheel or the arch - that was the point I was making. That said, they had great other achievements.

Revolt,
All I can say is you have a decidedly odd views. I suspect you read too much Chomsky. Your notions of the US don't accord with any notion of reality that I am aware of outside of the pages of Chomsky. Do you read Dan Brown as well? People can get exaggerated notions about Masonic themes from him. On Iran and the US
it is telling that the Columbia speeches were broadcast live in the US
(CNN and FOX) but not by Iranian TV. That should tell you something.

by gurgle Mon Oct 01, 2007 22:36

CNN not only managed to broadcast the Columbia debate live from Broadway, they also managed to censor it too. You pretend that the fact that CNN&Foxnews did live coverage yet IRNA didn't means something?
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=52277
Why yes it does. It means both CNN & Foxnews had sat-links & audiences who were awake at the same time as the debate whereas IRNA which wasn't granted a sat-link license would have been broadcasting a debate live when its viewers were in bed asleep.
For someone who appears to have such a high opinion of their incisive cleverness you really are quite dim. But anyway, do tell us how much do you think is "too much Chomsky reading" - perhaps you could help the reading lists of the not insignificant Chomskyites in Ireland who might be tackling his whole bibliography & watching morning, noon and night the video of his last appearance in Dublin with the WSM [ http://video.indymedia.org/en/2007/01/711.shtml ] & tell us which titles aren't worth reading?

hee hee hee.

by redjade Wed Oct 03, 2007 11:36

from a blog: A Tiny Revolution
Columbia's Long History Of Dictator-Loving
'Wonderfully enough, on the very same day Columbia president Lee Bollinger was castigating Ahmadenijad, the dictator of Turkmenistan was speaking elsewhere at Columbia. Yet Bollinger didn't seem upset about this at all. Huh.

Meanwhile, it turns out Columbia gave the Shah an honorary degree in 1955, just two years after the US overthrew Iran's democratically-elected government and installed him in power....'
http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001767.html

by Sceptic Thu Oct 04, 2007 06:17

Too many people base their opinions entirely on reading Chomsky who is a flawed personage in my view and in the view of many others. Despite his large young following he is not well regarded in academic or foreign policy circles as a worthy commentator. His Americaness and Jewishness does not mean that mean that he is not anti American and anti Semitic in outlook. Iranian bloggers made much of the fact that Ahmadinejad’s speech was not shown live in Iran – the Government would have had a chance to vet it before broadcasting – I was merely reflecting that sentiment. Whatever about Turkmenistan, the visit by Ahmadinejad was vastly more newsworthy and controversial. For one thing US troops are dying as a result of Iranian actions in Iraq. A US campus is ultra liberal on issues like gay rights while Iran is repressive if gays to the point of executing them – that’s bound to make the visit explosive. Columbia probably should not have invited him in the first place but it was important that Ahmadinejad, having accepted the invitation and knowing what it would involve, heard some plain speaking about the difficulties Americans have with him and his policies. Incidentally an honoury degree given over 50 years ago means nothing – these are given out to allied dignitaries all the time. Ronald Reagan got one from UCG, JFK from NUI and TCD, Elena Ceauşescu from the university of Illinois. These are of no significance.

by Jim O'Sullivan Thu Oct 04, 2007 08:15

" For one thing US troops are dying as a result of Iranian actions in Iraq."

Aparet from the fact that this is dangerous warmongering crap, US troops are dying because they invaded a sovereign state and the locals are not pleased. They can go home whenever they like.

by revolt Thu Oct 04, 2007 13:32

To re-cap over Chomsky: I agree with him on many issues but also disagree on others. I have many authors and outlooks on life that I take inspiration unlike many narrow minded sophist bigots of the pro-war fallacy. The fact that chomsky is both American and Jewish means he has more freedom of speech when it comes down to discussing Israeli zionist agression and blood-thirsty American foreign policy. Whereas if a gentile tried similar methods he would be character assinated on a continual basis. Yet despite this dis-comfort the more courageous ones persist.

America gets zero sympathy for any loss of its mercanary troops who are well aware of what they are doing. That is the silliest argument I've ever heard and shows the 'cons in hypocritical light then ever.

One million Iraqis had to die for some fat arsed Americans to come and take their oil over a lie, and then stomp on face for good measure. It reminds me in fact of the so called liberation of france in ww2( yes I said ww2) where American troops - whom have one worst records of discipline - raped en masse the population of liberated french women ( and other deplorable crimes) just as the soviet troops raped en masse liberated German women and children. The fact is America should keep to itself and only itself, period. Otherwise I would not have to be here typing these words.

by Sceptic Sat Oct 06, 2007 05:24

The US forces and the media have repeatedly reported that IEDs and similar devices in Iraq are supplied by Iran. Even strong critics of the Iraqi intervention in the US do not dispute this. I was explaining why there are strong feelings about the Iranian president in the US at present. That is one reason why Bollinger felt he had to make such strong comments. That does not make Bollinger or me a warmonger.

“Revolt” your remarks about mass rape in France by US forces is just a falsehood. Where do you get this stuff? US soldiers died by the tens of thousands liberating Europe from fascism and conducted themselves well in the process so that future generations could live in peace and prosperity including your good self. You use your hard won freedom to damn those who brought it to you in the first place.

by iosaf Sun Oct 07, 2007 18:01

You've had no reply for the fact that Iranian telly didn't broadcast the debate live sa most of their viewers were in bed asleep at the time, & you've moved from suggesting people read "too much Chomsky" without telling which Chomsky not to read, to asserting he's a flawed personage.

Apart from the fact that you've invented a word to insult a linguist, which since I habitually mis-spell & omit words would be hypocritical to make a thing out of - you've offered not one justification for the opinion. Exactly where has Chomsky gone wrong & why is "flawed"?

We could go two ways, we could I suppose follow your political views which are transparent & think his political analysis is wrong. As Bill o Reilly of Foxnews put it quaintly "Chomsky is worse than radical left he's an anarchist". Yes indeed, he is. & So too am I. If I look around the world today I find more and more people progressiing positively in their political understanding by either reading Chomsky or familiarising themselves with the gist of his political arguments through contact with what we may term (humouring my penchant for neologism) the "Chomskyites". It was I would argue a clear sign of the clarity & quality of his writing & ideas that saw him invited by the WSM (anarchists) in Ireland to speak. [ c/f the 2006 event was video-recorded and can be watched here http://video.indymedia.org/en/2007/01/711.shtml using free software which can be accessed as explained here http://indymedia.ie/article/80845 or directly here http://www.videolan.org/ .

It would be one indication of a generally well balanced individual that he accepted the invitation.

But perhaps your idea that he is "flawed" is not based on personality or politics but the quality of his work as a linguist or academic.

He holds the chair of linguistics in what is generally regarded as one of the top ten universities on the planet. Indeed Sceptic, Columbia university, the location of the debate which brought me to write this article to which you continue to append half-baked nonsense two weeks later, is not nor ever has been in that top ten list. Nor does it have a linguistics department, but there are four staff members who deal with areas of linguistics. Robert Remez as a cognitive specialist & the most qualified & published academic in that field attached to Columbia has himself extended Chomsky's linguistic & cognitive theories to other fields of study most notably an understanding of Deaf sign systems & an attempt to fit what many linguists do not consider a "language" into contemporary linguistic philosophy.

That Chomsky has taken criticism of his theories over the many decades since he first proposed them, & accordingly corrected & expanded on his work to the satisfaction or former critics is I suggest a second indication of a remarkably well balanced individual. One whose "moral fibre" deserves as much admiration as is willingness as the global leader in his field to enter into regular correspondence with anarchists, young people & so on.

Perhaps you Sceptic, are the one who hasn't read either Chomsky's political theories or his Linguistic work?
Perhaps you would prefer that younger and new generations of people with political or humanitarian or pacifist interests are brought to a deeper historical understanding of their instinctive notions of injustice by some Sunday Paper's columnist hack or worse still some prevailing conspiracy theory?
Perhaps you Sceptic would rather anonymously use the article I wrote, to slander or libel a man with whom more than a few us have enjoyed personal correspondence with?

At end - it's not really a problem. you're just gurgling. Until clarity moves out of the rarified atmosphere of rigorous intellectual training & long earned difficult contemplation & the discipline of self-correction, you will not be alone in gurgling. You are a creature of your time. But we are making a new one.

by wageslave Sun Oct 07, 2007 23:37

septic,
Would you consider the writings of Bill O' Reilly more worthy than those of Chomsky?
Your ideas do seem to coincide with his quite lot and on a number of issues.

by iosaf .:. ipsiphi Sun Oct 07, 2007 23:50

i had thought you'd choose the linguistic path for further gurgling & argue the definition of "personage". But instead you tell me that the head of the department of linguistics at the university who has arguably supplied the USA & its foreign service and intelligence arms with the most employees capable of translating the thoughts of both allies and enemies into American speech has no particular qualification to offer opinion or analysis on US politics.

You really are too dim if you think a teacher does not learn from his or her pupils or from the directions they take in later employment. Stop gurgling - you discredit the opinions you attempt to defend.

& whether you get it or not, we not only like & admire Chomsky - we defend him too.

http://indymedia.ie/article/80845
http://video.indymedia.org/en/2007/01/711.shtml

by wageslave Mon Oct 08, 2007 00:05

unfortunately neither link seems to work. Anybody have one that does?

by revolt Mon Oct 08, 2007 18:02

Bollinger is not only a sophistic warmonger but an outright bought and paid for white house shill. The "man" has shown lowest moral virtue expected of his standing.

America should never have touched the shores of France in ww2. Allied war crimes were in the hundreds of thousands. The US with its undertrained , fast food rabble playing a huge part in this. Europe has been not only far worse off as a result of this but Europe did not even need the US at all, apart from the freemasonic hatemongers in Britain. Even if it has been said before ( quite rightly) that the usa and the Soviet union were essentionally one and the same thing - given their rootless peoples and bohshevised masses) A soviet union takeover would have been less painful then an american capitalist slavery with all their filthy advertising junkets. Dont give me the BS that Ireland was better off either because of a US win. Had britain been smashed up ( quite desveringly ) Ireland would be a united country right now. The US interventionist policy in Europe has been unacceptable since , and the so called moral standard is decrepid to the core. Its culture is a disgusting mess and its peoples it produces as a result of such reductive propaganda is a testament to its decadency/deviancy. Two atomic bombs dropped and the events of over a hundred and fifty thousand civilians dead at Dresden and wurzberg give me no reason to doubt america's infantile and fallicous self-righteous. The USA and its continuous wars both secret and open represents an Absolute Evil on this planet of the most diabolical sort ever withnessed.

by Sceptic Tue Oct 09, 2007 19:06

Revolt you seem to be seriously disconnected from reality. Just to say Bollinger is not a hired gun for the White House. He is a tenured academic like Chomsky and is a liberal and democrat. He won't let the US armed forces recruit on the campus because there are not pro gay enough so you cam imagine how strongly he felt about the Iranian Pres coming to visit as gays get hanged in Iran. Irish unity under the Nazis or Stalin? What would be the point of being united in tyranny with the peace of grave to console us? The purpose of a nation is to provide a fulfilling space for its residents to live in. Its not a territorial abstraction. If you go by democracy the masses of people certainly chose the American way over the Soviet one. If people want prosperity and the freedom to eat Big Macs sometimes why not let them? Why get upset over it?

by iosaf Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:22

this morning I'm parsing the words of the Singapur state on what they term the "dumbness" of Myanmar's military. My thoughts turn for light relief to expressing the "dimness of Sceptic". Your dimness is absolute. Yours is the dimness of a black hole, from which even a spark generated by two bodies floating in the vast vacuum of space might not escape, your dimness is that of the absolute crushing density left behind the final twinkle of a star wished upon for aeons without hope of human eye. The utter dimness which prompts you to declare chomsky is "flawed" without even offering a suggestion sa to where, why or in what, other than you believe he is unqualified to discuss American policy but you the dim one who expects Iranian tv to do lie broadcasts at the same time as Foxnews are just what we need as a constant heckling commentator. From timezones to linguistics, from the US forces in WW2 to mc donalds burgers your quotidien dimness once seemed to continue like the mournful wailing of a pulsar - but now I know it is unavoidable. Yours are the black hole of comments, the gaping maw which sucks all material to an unknown or untheorised end. Not even science and its metaphors or imagery could express the awesome futility of feeding that abyss more. If not science perhaps religiosity might scintilate - the celerity of your dimness sceptic is that of prince of darkness, you are the satan of our comments.

stop gurgling & heckling.
the power of christ compels thee!

by wageslave Thu Oct 11, 2007 03:42

"The purpose of a nation is to provide a fulfilling space for its residents to live in"

er...are there any nations actually succeeding in doing this?

Seems to me that unbridled capitalism has put paid to any noble ideas like this long ago.

BTW, I second that description of septic's dhimmyness. He should pay a dhimmy tax for being allowed to practice his foul religion in the sacred virtual realm of indymedia. Peace be upon it! :)

by Revolt Fri Oct 12, 2007 03:50

Keeping on topic, Bollinger did not hold himself up to professional standard on any account of the conferance and his heavy establishment views on gays is meaningless when these same views are reflective of the neo-con agenda in general. Your hollow pro-gay sentiment is amusing though but I'm not buying.

Any chance , sceptic you could address further questions that have been allotted to you, rather than straw mans? ie, the issue of China and Saudi arabian Bush leniancy , when both countries hold worse records than Iran for human rights violations. A brief on your descrepancies with Chomsky would not lead astray either.

I dont believe nazism, sovietism, american or any state driven tyranny domination( I stress domination) is particular helpful to Ireland at all. We are currently under a mixture of both US led eu policy and british rule. I concluded that both sovietism and the usa( dogmatic jacobeanism with a masonic sentiment) are one and same coin, with interesting similarities. It goes without question though, that Ireland would have had a self determined policy throughout the entire Isle with the people running the place had Britain being smashed and the USA with all its jingoistic pap not intervened. I believe as a nation of unique people has a right much like those of other nations to rise up against plutocratic tyranny and assert their independance. Europe Like other continents and traditional nations should be given the dignity of solving their own problems without an exploitive third party ( aka USA and multinational globalists) profiteering off wars and human fatalities. This goes for Iran also, despite its shady links, the usa should keep its black ops , internal sabotaging methods, banking systems and other underhand zionist tricks -including a war baiting imperialist policy- away from it altoghter.

Hiding behind a dogmatic (enlightment style)scepticism I suprised you sell yourself as an Irishman, pouting a zeolous pro-bush,pro zionist agenda, when it serves neither the people of america or this Isle. These views are not only "decidedly odd" but on the brink of parody ( like wittinghorn its apperant who pays yours wages).
Europe Like other continents and traditional nations should be given the dignity of solving their own problems without an exploitive third party ( aka USA and multinational globalists) profiteering off wars and human fatalities. This goes for Iran also, despite its shady links,

The middle classes are fading, not only in Europe in general , but the USA also , as the "elite" grow richer every day and gap becomes larger between rich and poor . To state that the standard of wage slavery will rise to any decent extent in the near future is meer spin. Without too much off topic in explaining the deeper aspects of this, I shall say that my politics are firmly non-statist .

"Successful states" such as China, have the machine of capitalism and its automated beings doing work for pittance. The fact is, unbridled capitalism by its very nature is not self sustainable , it merely survives on the produce of the periphery while its at its core it is rotten. Have people benefited and become materially richer from this? Sure but its only those few 10% at the top of this whole fiasco who do.

by Neddy Fri Oct 12, 2007 16:27

I find it hard to believe that in Europe and USA the "The middle classes are fading", according to Revolt. I accept that there is an underclass. In USA it is about 3 million homeless people depending on charity and hostel accommodation from groups like St. VDP and the Salvation Army. And there are several million, like in Appalacia, living below the poverty line, many of them urban blacks - like those most affected by the flooding in New Orleans. In western Europe the underclass is largely, as in France, the "sans-papiers" and people of North African origins, or Turkish. But embourgeoisement or the expansion of the middle class continues, as it has since after WW2, in western Europe and USA.

Indeed we are under economic and cultural influence of the USA. People on the left underestimate the insidious everyday impact of anglo-saxon culture in western Europe. They themselves accept a lot of its flavour and social and artistic consequences. Really it's time for some serious looking at European society being saturated with cultural decadence.

As for Bollinger's "welcome remarks" to the President of Iran, I share scepticism about US fitness to chide Iran considering how USA foreign policy in Latin America, the Carribbean and the Middle East has been so damagingly intrusive and been so supportive of torturing dictatorships compliant with US government interests.

by Revolt Fri Oct 12, 2007 17:46

The bourgeoise spirit is alive and well no doubt. But it's the lower middle classes that keep the economies afloat, given that they are ones being milked off and taxed the most by the state. These include over inflated high tax rates, and zero subsidies from the government( grants, medical care,welfare denied) .Big businness on the other hand is actively encouraged. All this culminates in the prospect that the family as a unit is discouraged by the state , in fact anything from buying a new home to a new car means the person in question are indebted for the rest of their lives. Their assets are not even their own. I can say this is certainly true for my family, where the amount of taxes truncates the annual income in half- not to mention other things (I've never recieved a grant for education or medical expenses in my life although however needed). Existence in fact has become more expensive today in rip off republic Ireland than it has ever been. My point however is that the middle class is not only being discouraged through its very existance but we are seeing a widing gap between upper class millionaire bourgeois pultocracy and the lower middle classes, working and underclasses respectively. This is certainly true for Britain and Ireland and what is happening in the USA.

More independance and less interferance from the US , EU, UK and our own state I will argue for.

by Neddy Sat Oct 13, 2007 08:01

Can you justify the statement that the lower middle classes keep the economy afloat?

by Brennie Sat Oct 13, 2007 08:46

Whatever happened to the working class and its leading role in the onward progress of western society?

by Revolt Sat Oct 13, 2007 16:39

As above, the petty bourgeois do not recieve any grant subsidies of the state, in any form. Below a certain wage you are entitled to these but those slightly above that margin are screwed and are better off on a lower salary to qualifiy for the medical, educational and otherwise. On observation this lower middle class are milked more than the working class and are on par wage wise with them, of course wether they keep the economy afloat when the "celtic tiger" has run out of ideas is perhaps more a matter of opinion. Cheap labour and its exploitation (construction industry et al) are keeping the ecomony 'booming" - granted its not sustainable and likely to burn out soon- and that most of the money earned will be kept to a few at the top with tax subsidies to boot. Does this undermine the workers uprise or the anarchists revolt or legitimise the bourgeois( in any form)? I believe not. What can be said is the ecomony is not ours to manage...yet.

by Pete Smith Sun Dec 02, 2007 01:56 pete_smith at mail dot com

Below your photoshop image, you state:

"American imperialism or Iranian fundamentalism"

What do you mean, "or"? Are you trying to be insulting or in denial?

Both are the case.

by Watcher Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:10

"Below your photoshop image, you state:

"American imperialism or Iranian fundamentalism"
What do you mean, "or"? Are you trying to be insulting or in denial?
Both are the case"

In the interests of accurracy what is actually required is,

"Imperialism and fundamenalism"

Don't you agree Pete?