Iran, demonized and/or idealized?

[Oxymoron]

No. I do not support attacking Syria or Iran. Nor did I support Iraq.

In that case I apologize for misunderstanding your position

You really have very little understanding of my political views. You simply kneejerk to some cliche image in your head when ever I point out you are wrong. You are rampant with emotion and it leads to many failures on your part.

Yes I do feel strongly about it. It is because I value democracy and would like to see it maintained and improved not usurped by kleptomaniacs.

If I have misunderstood, please advise why you post in the vein which you do so that I may better understand. Thanks.

 

[SR1419]

In that case I apologize for misunderstanding your position

Yes I do feel strongly about it. It is because I value democracy and would like to see it maintained and improved not usurped by kleptomaniacs.

If I have misunderstood, please advise why you post in the vein which you do so that I may better understand. Thanks.

Because I do not like bunk.

(apology accepted)

 

[JeffreyNotGeoffrey]

I am very sorry Oxy that you overlook Iran's near constant Jew/Israel baiting. They did say they wanted to eliminate Israel. They have also sponsored known terrorists groups that specifically target Israel. Worse there was that gobsmackingly stupid "Holocaust History" Conference in which it was basically a Holocaust denial forum. Iran takes some flack, but they give as good as they get.
My whole feeling is that if both sides would just STFU for like a year, maybe mutual respect might blossom and that whole area may move on to bigger and better things. I've studied the modern era there. Yeah Europe pooped the bed after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and dividing the whole area up into "spheres of influence". In fact the boundaries of many of those countries were set up after WWI by people who probably never visited them. Any who a bad history of oppression is no excuse for half the things Iran does, nor do I believe a fantastically oil rich nation needs peaceful nuclear weapons. They are a part of the proliferation trend in the area started by black member of the nuclear club, Israel (I understand why but don't like it), and by Best Enemies Forever Pakistan and India. Incidentally those countries are right next to Iran, so I understand why Iran feels pressure to arm accordingly.

 

[qed]

Observe how, right now,

I am very sorry Oxy that you overlook Iran's near constant Jew/Israel baiting. They did say they wanted to eliminate Israel. They have also sponsored known terrorists groups that specifically target Israel. Worse there was that gobsmackingly stupid "Holocaust History" Conference in which it was basically a Holocaust denial forum. Iran takes some flack, but they give as good as they get.
My whole feeling is that if both sides would just STFU for like a year, maybe mutual respect might blossom and that whole area may move on to bigger and better things. I've studied the modern era there. Yeah Europe pooped the bed after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and dividing the whole area up into "spheres of influence". In fact the boundaries of many of those countries were set up after WWI by people who probably never visited them. Any who a bad history of oppression is no excuse for half the things Iran does, nor do I believe a fantastically oil rich nation needs peaceful nuclear weapons. They are a part of the proliferation trend in the area started by black member of the nuclear club, Israel (I understand why but don't like it), and by Best Enemies Forever Pakistan and India. Incidentally those countries are right next to Iran, so I understand why Iran feels pressure to arm accordingly.

Observe how, in real time, you are manufacturing consent for a war on Syria and Iran.

 

[JeffreyNotGeoffrey]

QED I don't really know how you construed that to be advocating war. Let me focus you a little. I said, "My whole feeling is that if both side (or rather all sides in the Middle East)would just STFU for like a year (basically a time out for everybody to cool off), maybe mutual respect might blossom and that whole area may move on to bigger and better things." That WHOLE phrase sounds like an appeal for understanding and peace.
However if you wish to highlight the negative criticisms of Iran, then debunk them. They've done STUPID things in the past. This doesn't warrant war, but it does mean people especially the Jews should be wary of them.
And incidentally don't put wrong words in my mouth, and please don't quote that hack Chomsky. As a liberal I find him to embody the absolute worst of disoriented fuzzy brained sweater loving liberals. his whole Manufacturing Consent garbage of a book showed his true non understanding of media as a business. Also why don't you explain away Chomsky's Holocaust denial and genocide denial in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.

 

[JeffreyNotGeoffrey]

And I have to say it is painfully ironic that your tagline is never forgive and never forget, and yet you provide cover for Holocaust deniers.

 

[qed]

that hack Chomsky

It is a powerful theory with amazing predictive properties.

Chomsky wears very long coat tails and will be in Wikipedia in 1000 years time (Marx and Durkheim too).

 

[JeffreyNotGeoffrey]

Well sorry if I don't subscribe to an intellectual hack who can't see the inconsistencies in his public pronouncements. He should stick with linguistics and not with history on which he has a very tenuous grasp to put it lightly.

 

[qed]

Well sorry if I don't subscribe to an intellectual hack who can't see the inconsistencies in his public pronouncements. He should stick with linguistics and not with history on which he has a very tenuous grasp to put it lightly.

If his theory is to be believed, then, if a war on Syria or Iran is in the offing, as predicted on this forum, then you, your friends and the media (including this site) will manufacture consent for this war, as too predicted on this forum.

 

[MikeC]

Deuteronomy 20:16-18? 1 Sam 15:2-3? 1 Sam 28:16-18?

EDIT 1

Sorry, just to be clear, these are points in the old testament where "God" commands his believers to commit genocide against other tribes, some for past transgressions, some for worshiping false gods like Balaal. There are more if you need them, but there is a lot of context to read as well.

EDIT 2

Oh, and forgot this one, which was used by the Church of England to burn witches all over England:

Exodus 22:18 - "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"

nonetheless none of them mention apostates

Edit:

this all started with my comment that Baha'i is considered an apostate form of islam by at least many moslems, hence at least partially explaining the level of hostility to it in Iran.

Why it has become a p*****g match about why that isn't so bad, or whatever (I'm not even sure what the point of referring to other religions is any more) because other religious books contain some savage proscriptions against various groups escapes me.

 

[JeffreyNotGeoffrey]

Pray tell how am I manufacturing consent, or will you continue to see any criticism of a foreign country as laying a pretext for war (utter BS). Also you haven't addressed the fact that I don't want war in the region. I think everyone over there (as said before, and one more strike and I call that trolling/willful ignorance) needs to chill, go to their respective corners, and mellow out.
Or is that a "sitzkrieg".

 

[JeffreyNotGeoffrey]

nonetheless none of them mention apostates

Edit:

this all started with my comment that Baha'i is considered an apostate form of islam by at least many moslems, hence at least partially explaining the level of hostility to it in Iran.

Why it has become a p*****g match about why that isn't so bad, or whatever (I'm not even sure what the point of referring to other religions is any more) because other religious books contain some savage proscriptions against various groups escapes me.

Hence why I prefer Pastafarianism and the "I Really Wish You Wouldn't"s. It is a religion believing in equality and harmony and not caring about stupid stuff like sexuality, sex, and what clothes you wear. Oh, that and pirates.

 

[MikeC]

You forgot that it is also tasty and goes well with cheese

 

[Cairenn]

Oxy, I have stated before that our involvement in Iraq was a huge mistake. With Syria, we and them are damned either way. In general, we should limit our involvement in other countries, but that policy to can bite a country.

I always prefer using diplomacy and everything else first. We should gotten together with Saudi and other countries and offered Sadam several billion dollars for him and a selected group of his 'friends' to leave power and live like kings for years. Heck it would have been cheaper to have built them a town in Saudi. That would have reduced the death toll of Iraqis, but it wouldn't have prevented it.

The mid East and Africa are both areas that still are very tribal in their nature and neither has a strong history of any representative government. In mid East the various sultanates ruled with an iron hand, then other powers came in, mostly European powers (the same in Africa) and they ruled with an iron hand.

Europe is not all that far from those days them selves. Look at what happened in the Balkans when Tito died.

The US is not tribal, but we had our own Civil War over what being a democracy was.

I really wish you would try living it the countries you excuse from their misdeeds. Or if nothing else go talk to the folks that have lived in the countries you see feel that superior to the West

The FACT is that the west, corporations and all, allow a freedom of speech, of religion of association and yes even of opportunity unknown in most of the world. Folks die every day in attempts to reach the US, western Europe and Australia.

 

[xenon]

Iran poses a grave threat to the US, as the following graphic clearly shows.

Each star is a US military base. What would the US do in a similar circumstance?



I doublechecked one of the alleged bases in Pakistan and came upon this headline

U.S. Refuses to “Share” Shamsi Airbase in Balochistan, or to Vacate Three Other Bases in Pakistan
http://afpakwar.com/blog/archives/3108
Thursday August 29th 2013

Quoting “an official,” a front page story in Pakistan’s leading English news daily, Dawn, claimed on Saturday that the United States has vacated all airbases in Pakistan, except the Shamsi airbase: “… the airbases near Jacobabad, Pasni, and Dalbandin had been vacated by the Americans ‘a long time ago’… Sources said the Shahbaz airbase near Jacobabad, about 480 kms north of Karachi which was the last airbase vacated by US forces, preceded by the ones near Pasni and Dalbandin.”

This is contrary to a public statement by Pakistan’s Defence Minister in December 2009 on a Talk Show, reported among others by The Nation at the time...
​

Anyone that thinks Iran is a "threat" to the US should probably admit that the half billion dollars per year extracted from the American People for "defense" has been flushed down the toilet.

Of course, that money could buy a lot of boxcutters. And since boxcutters were the main tool used by 19 Arab hijackers that allowed them to hijack 4 aircraft and then fly them into the most defended airspace in the world, and crash them into 2 buildings in New York (causing 3 to collapse) and 1 into the very center headquarters of "The World's Last Remaining SuperPower" the purchase of these craft knives would actually provide more safety than whatever they are spending that loot on now.

Maybe splurge and go for a few new anti aircraft missiles and put them around the pentagon, since if they had any before, they didn't work.

 

[MikeC]

And since boxcutters were the main tool used by 19 Arab hijackers that allowed them to hijack 4 aircraft and then fly them into the most defended airspace in the world....

I didn't realize that New York was in Israel!!

Maybe splurge and go for a few new anti aircraft missiles and put them around the pentagon, since if they had any before, they didn't work.

12 years on and you still aren't sure whether they had any AD missiles around the Pentagon??

Perhaps you should update your sources, whatever they are.

FYI - they didn't.

 

[Oxymoron]

Because I do not like bunk.

Then why keep posting bunk?

I notice that neither you or Cairenn state that you were not in favour of Libya. Will you state that you disagree with the underhand funding of proxy fighters (Al Qaeda terrorists) and the massive campaign including bombing and 'no fly zones' to destabilise the country and effect a regime change which has resulted in carnage and the ruination of the country and Al Qaeda running the country.

Will you and Cairenn deny that you are promoting (by biased smear tactics), the same type of action in Syria and Iran?

You state you are against 'bunk' but being against 'bunk' means you should apply the same standards to information and propaganda whatever its source. Debunkers tend mostly to apply double standards. "Iran is a terrorist state"... "Prove it"... "Look it says so here in Wikipedia that the U.S regards it as a terrorist state"... "But Iran says the U.S is a terrorist state"... "That's just bunk, the U.S is wonderful".

No, you love to pick out faults in other Countries but you refuse to see the glaring faults in your own... that is not being patriotic ... that is being biased and propagandist and when you are fully aware that your country is intending to go to war with another country (which has made no hostile moves to your country)... that act of vilifying the other country is promoting war... fuelling the war machine. So yes, you are every bit as guilty as those who give the orders and those who press the triggers. In fact, I suggest more so because many of those 'pressing the triggers' have been duped by listening to the toxic, biased tripe put out by people like you.

 

[Oxymoron]

Maybe splurge and go for a few new anti aircraft missiles and put them around the pentagon, since if they had any before, they didn't work.

Well I am going to go out on a limb and suggest Xenon was being facetious

I may even dare to follow suit.

I thought the map was very interesting... It proves beyond doubt that Iran and Syria are 'baddies with something to hide'... if they were not then they would allow the U.S to take over their countries and have loads of military bases on their soil, trade in U.S $ and they would take their orders directly from The Whitehouse like all the rest of the good guys who's lands are littered with U.S military installations. Look how good the Germans are now and us Brits we are so good we have your military installations and take our orders from the U.S and all our citizens are nicely monitored and regulated and spied on by the U.S, to be sure to be sure. And it is so egalitarian because even the U.N offices are bugged and the world 'leaders' know their place. Small price to pay really so we get to watch the Simpsons and Person of Interest and get to have Google Goggles etc. Nirvana.

 

[Oxymoron]

Oxy,
I always prefer using diplomacy and everything else first. We should gotten together with Saudi and other countries and offered Sadam several billion dollars for him and a selected group of his 'friends' to leave power and live like kings for years. Heck it would have been cheaper to have built them a town in Saudi. That would have reduced the death toll of Iraqis, but it wouldn't have prevented it.

Yep you are probably right there but would he have gone... I doubt it, it's all about the power IMO. And where are you proposing the send the Saudi royals to stop them from abusing their citizenry?

I really wish you would try living it the countries you excuse from their misdeeds. Or if nothing else go talk to the folks that have lived in the countries you see feel that superior to the West

Yet again you misrepresent me. I do not excuse the misdeeds of tyrants and dictators from any country and I am perfectly happy living where I live thank you very much. All I have said is, 'the U.S should stop poking its nose in halfway around the world and attacking one dictator whilst supporting or empowering another equally bad dictator... all for its own gain'. It is hypocrisy.

If the West want to help, they should send humanitarian aid and gas masks and stop selling billions of dollars worth of WMD's to tyrants.

The FACT is that the west, corporations and all, allow a freedom of speech, of religion of association and yes even of opportunity unknown in most of the world. Folks die every day in attempts to reach the US, western Europe and Australia.

The FACT is that the Western 'democracy', whilst it may be better than many other places around the world, is still a sham of democracy which is 'run or unduly impacted' by a small contingent of extremely powerful kleptomaniacs who will stop at no despicable action that serves their interests and who care not one jot about the people or democracy.

It is ridiculous to suggest that just because many places in the world are 'far worse' or that many regimes are 'extremely bad'... that we should be unable to address what is wrong with our own system. Fix our system first before we go interfering militarily in the politics of other nations.

 

[xenon]

I didn't realize that New York was in Israel!!

Thanks! I'm not exactly new to Geography, but I didn't realize that Israel's airspace was more heavily defended than Washington DC. Interesting. I wonder if the building that houses their Defense department has any AA equipment prepared to defend it from stray Boeings or Airbuses. If not, perhaps there's a sales lead!

12 years on and you still aren't sure whether they had any AD missiles around the Pentagon??

It's the willingness to give a poster the benefit of the doubt that makes some forums so much better than others...Thanks again!

Perhaps you should update your sources, whatever they are.
FYI - they didn't.

Indeed! Here yet again, thanks. Always appreciate new sources. I went to that link and plan to refer to it in the future.

Having read through the page linked,(only one time so far) this stands out:

...Our first problem with this idea is that we've never, ever, at any point seen a reference to show that these missile batteries exist. Why no photos, no stories about them? Plainly they wouldn’t want to give away some details, but it makes little sense to keep them entirely secret, because surely the whole point of such batteries would be to act as a deterrent?...
​

Not having the time yet to see who it is that the "Our" in the first sentence refers to, I'll assume that he/she/they are much more educated than I and will consider their statement- that they (Civilians? Ex Military?) say they haven't seen any missile batteries around the Pentagon. I doubt I'd see any either if I went looking for them, because I don't have any idea what I'd be looking for. And if I did, I doubt that I'd be able to get close enough to take a picture. But maybe I'm wrong and there are signs pointing to off ramps on the interstates around there like AA Missile Battery ---> Next Left.

And while I'm considering their opinion, I'll also consider the following, keeping in mind that we are talking about the very center of the Defense of the United States of America (after prevailing in a 50 yr or so "cold war" with evil vile godless Soviets that would pound shoes on tables):

I think it is reasonable to ASSUME that the Pentagon has some sort of air-defense system. Furthermore, I think it would be reasonable to ASSUME that most if not all information about any such system would be CLASSIFIED information. There is nothing wrong with making reasonable and rational assumptions provided one states clearly that they are such. I assume the sun will rise tomorrow and that I'll still be here to see it.

No, I don't have a "source" other than my own reason. Lets put it this way, how "reasonable" is it to assume the opposite, to assume that the headquarters for a significant proportion of our national defense infrastructure is, itself, "defenseless"? Obviously, absent verifiable reporting, our assumptions are just that and any detail we might imagine is just that. But the overall assumption isn't unreasonable. posted by painter http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=12440

​

And this:

The greatest concern from about 1952 onwards re: Pentagon was that the Rooskies, knowing how much of the military planning operation was concentrated in Pentagon, would attempt to "decapitate" the DC authority prior to a strike.

the cafe in the central courtyard is aptly named ';cafe ground zero' --

now,convince yourself, that with 60 years since they laid the first stone, that the Pentagon had no systems for air defense. no radars. no team of security whose only job it was -- to detect & deter threats to pentagon by air, land, sea, or space.

might as well tell me my bank doesnt lock the doors at night. JackD same thread
​

And this:

I have to say for me, just my opinion looking at it from distance, that it is very hard for me to believe that the US government have no system to defend its own military head quarters. post: behind
​

And these pictures:

​

1 June 2009. Shepherd Johnson sends a link to 2006 description of air defense for the National Capitol Region:

I've been doing research concerning the Air Defense Systems in D.C. apparently I mislabelled those systems as being Patriots, this article is saying that they are not Patriots but a "non-U.S. Army missile system". This is interesting. I'm guessing they are foreign made because they don't specify anything about them,...

...The Norwegian Advanced SAM System (NASAMS). The NASAMS launcher has six ready to fire AMRAAM missiles.

NASAMS was developed in close cooperation with the Royal Norwegian Air Force during the 1990s and has since then been contracted by the Netherlands, Spain, and the US. In latter case, the high capacity system was operational in connection with the inauguration of the US president in Washington DC in 2005. It has been in continuous operation ever since.​

Google Earth from Fort Belvoir Missile Battery (distance between Fort Belvoir, VA and Pentagon, DC 16 Miles)


http://cryptome.org/eyeball/belvoir-mb/belvoir-mb.htm

If the Pentagon did not have ANY AA defense before 911, I'd bet it does now. Hopefully that's in the half billion (or is it 3/4 now) dollars for next year.

Imagine how stupid the Old Generals of what was the USSR must feel now. If they had only realized that some hijackers with craft knives could have crippled the US.

 

[SR1419]

Then why keep posting bunk?

I notice that neither you or Cairenn state that you were not in favour of Libya. Will you state that you disagree with the underhand funding of proxy fighters (Al Qaeda terrorists) and the massive campaign including bombing and 'no fly zones' to destabilise the country and effect a regime change which has resulted in carnage and the ruination of the country and Al Qaeda running the country.

Will you and Cairenn deny that you are promoting (by biased smear tactics), the same type of action in Syria and Iran?

You state you are against 'bunk' but being against 'bunk' means you should apply the same standards to information and propaganda whatever its source. Debunkers tend mostly to apply double standards. "Iran is a terrorist state"... "Prove it"... "Look it says so here in Wikipedia that the U.S regards it as a terrorist state"... "But Iran says the U.S is a terrorist state"... "That's just bunk, the U.S is wonderful".

No, you love to pick out faults in other Countries but you refuse to see the glaring faults in your own... that is not being patriotic ... that is being biased and propagandist and when you are fully aware that your country is intending to go to war with another country (which has made no hostile moves to your country)... that act of vilifying the other country is promoting war... fuelling the war machine. So yes, you are every bit as guilty as those who give the orders and those who press the triggers. In fact, I suggest more so because many of those 'pressing the triggers' have been duped by listening to the toxic, biased tripe put out by people like you.

You can spew all the erroneous vitriol and hyperbole you want- it doesn't make it so. Libya is "ruined"? Al Qaeda "running the country". No. Simply false.

Time and time again you simply make things up to suite your agenda...seriously- when I have I EVER promoted ANYTHING in regards to Syria or Iran- wtf?

So, everything in Wikipedia is "bunk"??- it was merely a standard, starting reference point...the details of Iran's involvement in global violence are well known, well sourced. Unless you can refute the wiki entry claim by claim- its stands- Just claiming its "bunk" doesn't make it so.

It is a fact that Iran has engaged in and/or sponsored terrorism. It is a fact that Iran is country with limited societal freedoms. Pointing out these facts is not "villifying" or propaganda. Its stating facts. The thread is about Iran.

You simply lambast with illogical, unfounded ad hominem attacks that truly undermine any respect you might garner.

Good luck with that.

 

[SR1419]

Imagine how stupid the Old Generals of what was the USSR must feel now. If they had only realized that some hijackers with craft knives could have crippled the US.

Was it standard military procedure to shoot down hijacked planes?

 

[Cairenn]

I live here, 9/11 shocked the US, but it didn't 'cripple' us. The stock market closed for about a week, there were job losses and such, but we were not crippled.

 

[MikeC]

Thanks! I'm not exactly new to Geography, but I didn't realize that Israel's airspace was more heavily defended than Washington DC.

You are welcome - I'm always happy to inform.

 

[SR1419]

Iran poses a grave threat to the US, as the following graphic clearly shows.

Each star is a US military base.

Your map is outdated- there are no US military bases in Iraq:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2012/04/2012417131242767298.html

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2012/04/2012417131242767298.html

 

[Oxymoron]

Your map is outdated- there are no US military bases in Iraq:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2012/04/2012417131242767298.html

Not according to this site

http://militarybases.com/overseas/iraq/

 

[Landru]

Not according to this site

http://militarybases.com/overseas/iraq/

you did read the entries didn't you? I read the first four and three said that the US had handed over to the Iraqis or were in the process of handing over.

 

[Oxymoron]

you did read the entries didn't you? I read the first four and three said that the US had handed over to the Iraqis or were in the process of handing over.

Ah... sorry about that, you are correct. Interesting read though. Thanks.

 

[Edgukator]

Thanks for your honesty E. I had not even heard of the Bha'is before Cairenn mentioned them, let alone what their/your difficulties are/were. But I will say this. It is your problem and not a reason for us to go to war and depose a democratically elected and peaceful, (to the world) Government and do to Iran what was done to Iraq.

It seems to me that your struggle will have to go on, as it went on in S Africa, Australia, Egypt, and far too many other Countries to mention. Seek international aid by all means but I do not believe it even remotely justifiable, (legally or morally), to invade and devestate a Country because of abuses going on in that country. the costs to all are far to high. That goes for Iran, Syria, Latin America, Zimbabwe, Russia, China, Europe, America or anywhere else. Internal problems are exactly that... internal. Let the people sort it out themselves.

Can I ask you, do you honestly think a war such as was forced onto Iraq or Libya would benefit the majority of people in Iran or Syria? Do you see any justification for this self evident warmongering by Neocons?

Another problem I can see is



Now if that is not going to cause trouble... I don't know what is! There are millions worldwide who are opposed to that and we are denigraded and persecuted as Conspiracy Theorists... Who is going to war for us?

Hi Oxy, sorry, been busy of late.

First, please be careful about your use of the word persecuted. Unless you can demonstrate a systematic process by which Conspiracy Theorists are being targeted, killed, arrested, denied the right to education, employment and property... simply on the basis of their beliefs, it's a little bit degrading to here that word used. I would never call myself persecuted, living in a position of relative privilege, because so many of my closest friends have suffered real persecution in Iran.

Secondly, I'm not a proponent of war. I can't speak for the entire Baha'i Faith, so I cannot tell you officially whether the Baha'i community would support military intervention on our behalf, but as we are asked not to defend ourselves with violence should we be attacked for our religious beliefs, I would say I don't believe we would ask for the US to intervene on our behalf. What I was doing was responding to the question of whether Iran was being villainised.

We do believe in a world governing body, and I think a question like "is a situation sufficiently tyrannical to justify military intervention"? is exactly the reason that justifies it. When we have a situation like what happened in Iraq, and the US and the UK declare war on what, politely, we could call suspect evidence, having a body of nations to adjudicate on the strength of that evidence and the moral necessity is a positive step. I personally hold concerns about the way that currently works, as indeed I think anyone who looks at the mechanisms of the UN Security Council would, but at the same time I appreciated the work the United Nations to put political pressure on Iran over their civil rights violations, and the development work that has been marshaled through the UN.

As you pointed out, your question about the justification of military intervention is different than the question of whether Iran has been demonised, and quite frankly I don't have a view on this.

 

[Edgukator]

nonetheless none of them mention apostates

Edit:

this all started with my comment that Baha'i is considered an apostate form of islam by at least many moslems, hence at least partially explaining the level of hostility to it in Iran.

Why it has become a p*****g match about why that isn't so bad, or whatever (I'm not even sure what the point of referring to other religions is any more) because other religious books contain some savage proscriptions against various groups escapes me.

I didn't think it was a pissing match, just trying to clarify the facts when it comes to Islam. I'm sorry if it has come off that way.

Apostasy is not intrinsic to Islam, it requires a process of interpretation to make it doctrine. The quotes used to justify it are not unique to Islam, they exist in the old testament as well:

Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.

Deut 20:17-18

They have been used by Christians as well, throughout history, to justify the killing of non-believers. Neither religion is right to do so, but then, I don't think that is what you were stating.

All that being said, yes, I understand that Iran follows a doctrine of persecuting what they consider to be apostates. They justify it by taking quotes from the Quran out of context.

But I'm a little bit anal retentive when it comes to religion, especially Islam because there is so much misinformation in the ether, especially post-9/11. So when you claim something is intrinsic to Islam (it isn't) or unique to Islam (ditto) I feel compelled to set the record straight.

After all, isn't that why we're here at metabunk in the first place?

EDIT:

Sorry, I realise that there is an intrinsic argument I was making that I didn't clarify. I see apostasy as a subset of the larger category "killing people who think differently to you", so yes, while Islam talks specifically about people who used to think like you (apostasy), I don't see much difference between a statement that reads "kill an ex-believer" and "kill a non-believer". Considering Iran has been imprisoning and killing people who were born into the Baha'i Faith, meaning they never renounced Islam (actually, Baha'is don't renounce Islam, but that's an entirely different argument) the difference is not particularly relevant.

 

[Oxymoron]

Hi Oxy, sorry, been busy of late.

First, please be careful about your use of the word persecuted. Unless you can demonstrate a systematic process by which Conspiracy Theorists are being targeted, killed, arrested, denied the right to education, employment and property... simply on the basis of their beliefs, it's a little bit degrading to here that word used. I would never call myself persecuted, living in a position of relative privilege, because so many of my closest friends have suffered real persecution in Iran.

Secondly, I'm not a proponent of war.

Hi E,thanks for your post. Apologies for my flippant use of 'persecuted', I am sure you realised it was meant to be tongue in cheek but I do agree it was a bit insensitive given your religion has been genuinely persecuted, please be assured I meant no offence.

Yes there is a big difference between the thread title and the core of my concern which is I why I raised it at the first opportunity. The Iranian system has many excesses which I find repulsive, as have most other Countries all in varying degrees. There is no doubt in my mind that the West has the most tolerance toward it's citizenry, in the world. However, I would still like to see us improve on that and hopefully enough people will agree with me to be a sufficiency to bring about those changes. You are starting from a much more difficult position to effect change in Iran and I suspect it will take much longer and be an extremely difficult, painful and costly journey. I wish you well in your peaceful endeavors.

We too have had many trials and tribulations and it has taken much suffering by many to bring us to where we are now. Leaders of immense stature such as Ghandi, Mandela, MLK etc have been stalwart rallying points and inspiration to many who have taken the hard path. I am sure that there are many Iranians, Iraqi's and people of all nations who are equally stalwart and will bear their burdens to effect changes.

But whilst I recognise that many Countries have serious faults, I balk at what I perceive as 'the demonisation in order to justify hegemony and invasion' by Countries which should know better and if we are honest are guilty of some very serious injustices themselves.

I would support 'interference', which was designed to make the lot of 'the people', better but the reality is that making war on these Countries and demonising them is all about imperialism and profiteering. I find it repulsive that it is wrapped up and thinly disguised as 'humanitarian aid'.

Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Iran and Syria are excellent examples of where the West has manufactured unrest and war for their own purposes.

There is an excellent PBS documentary which highlights some of the manipulations and excesses of the Bush administration. It is rather long but I think it well worth watching for anyone who has an interest.

Anyway... I wish you well and hope that circumstances improve for your religion in your homeland.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/view/

 

[xenon]

Was it standard military procedure to shoot down hijacked planes?

If a heavy jet airline is flying towards the Pentagon or any other building I would hope the policy is to shoot it down. Wouldn't that make sense?

Looks like that's the policy now, when I have time I'm going to research the history of this policy

Shooting down aircraft

According to reports, U.S. fighter pilots have been trained to shoot down hijacked commercial airliners should it become necessary.[14] Other countries, such as India, Poland, and Russia have enacted similar laws or decrees that allow the shooting down of hijacked planes.[15] Polish Constitutional Court however, in September 2008, decided that the regulations were unconstitutional and dismissed them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_hijacking#Prevention

US pilots train shooting civilian planes
Two hijacked civilian planes crashed into World Trade Center

US fighter pilots are practising shooting down civilian airliners in the event of any new attack on America like the 11 September 2001 attacks.

"We practice this several times a week," Air Force General Ralph Eberhart, told reporters.

"[It could be] an airplane shooting down an airplane or air defence systems in the national capital region shooting down an airplane," he said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3161354.stm
​

The USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian Civilian jetliner (flight 655) while in Iranian Airspace killing 290 including 66 children in 1988. So this is not totally unheard of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655



Here are some more pictures of AA weapons in places that might not be so obvious.

This shows an Avenger anti-aircraft missile battery atop a Washington Naval Yard parking garage.
http://cryptome.org/eyeball/wny-mb/wny-mb.htm
​

Was someone smart enough to think of this kind of placement before 911? Were any AA batteries located away from the Pentagon but tasked to protect that building? I'm wondering if any other countries had/have AA protection located in hidden spots not directly viewable from or near the buildings they are tasked to protect. it's a brilliant idea, isn't it.

Hmmmm.....

We are supposed to believe that there was only one camera trained on the entire wall of the Pentagon that was hit, located at the Heliport, that stamped images with the wrong time, and only captured a limited amount of frames.

So maybe it's not such a far fetched idea- that there were no AA weapons at all. But I don't think so.

 

[qed]

Iranian Parliament Passes Bill To Sue Washington Over 1953 Coup

The Iranian parliament has approved a bill calling on the government to take legal action against the United States for its role in the 1953 coup in Tehran.

The bill, passed on August 27, calls for "political and legal investigation" into the coup that toppled Iran's democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh.

Iranian news agencies said a commission will be created to investigate the case. The commission will be chaired by Iran's foreign minister.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) declassified documents that admit the agency orchestrated the coup, which restored the regime of then-Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

According to the documents, the coup plan was called Operation TPAJAX.

Iranian lawmakers said the admission by the CIA was sufficient evidence to get compensation from Washington.

http://www.rferl.org/content/iran-sues-us-1953-coup/25088936.html

Content from External Source

 

[Edgukator]

Hi E,thanks for your post. Apologies for my flippant use of 'persecuted', I am sure you realised it was meant to be tongue in cheek but I do agree it was a bit insensitive given your religion has been genuinely persecuted, please be assured I meant no offence.

Yes there is a big difference between the thread title and the core of my concern which is I why I raised it at the first opportunity. The Iranian system has many excesses which I find repulsive, as have most other Countries all in varying degrees. There is no doubt in my mind that the West has the most tolerance toward it's citizenry, in the world. However, I would still like to see us improve on that and hopefully enough people will agree with me to be a sufficiency to bring about those changes. You are starting from a much more difficult position to effect change in Iran and I suspect it will take much longer and be an extremely difficult, painful and costly journey. I wish you well in your peaceful endeavors.

We too have had many trials and tribulations and it has taken much suffering by many to bring us to where we are now. Leaders of immense stature such as Ghandi, Mandela, MLK etc have been stalwart rallying points and inspiration to many who have taken the hard path. I am sure that there are many Iranians, Iraqi's and people of all nations who are equally stalwart and will bear their burdens to effect changes.

But whilst I recognise that many Countries have serious faults, I balk at what I perceive as 'the demonisation in order to justify hegemony and invasion' by Countries which should know better and if we are honest are guilty of some very serious injustices themselves.

I would support 'interference', which was designed to make the lot of 'the people', better but the reality is that making war on these Countries and demonising them is all about imperialism and profiteering. I find it repulsive that it is wrapped up and thinly disguised as 'humanitarian aid'.

Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Iran and Syria are excellent examples of where the West has manufactured unrest and war for their own purposes.

There is an excellent PBS documentary which highlights some of the manipulations and excesses of the Bush administration. It is rather long but I think it well worth watching for anyone who has an interest.

Anyway... I wish you well and hope that circumstances improve for your religion in your homeland.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/view/

Thanks Oxy. And yeah, I understood you were using persecuted as a joke, its just kind of like Godwin's Law - if everything becomes a comparison to the Nazis, it doesn't have the impact it needs when shit gets real. I know that PBS documentary well and what happened under Bush has a lot to do with why I got in to US politics and the question of "debunking" in the first place.

I perfectly understand this question of "demonisation", and I think what you're more concerned with is the ulterior motive of it.

I can tell you that any time I hear the plight of Baha'is in Iran mentioned on TV I feel a little bit of joy in the sense that the problem is all but invisible to most people. I'm sure gay rights activists and people involved with the women's equality in Iran feel it similarly, but that in no way means we support a call for military intervention in Iran, so we're faced in a problem:

How do we distinguish between legitimate concerns over Iran, pushing for greater awareness of the issues faced by their citizens, and warmongering? Yes, the moment I see anyone involved with the American military or any politician with a history of supporting military intervention, I get a sick feeling in my stomach, especially because that exactly the type of evidence that's used in government propaganda against the Baha'is in Iran.

 

[Edgukator]

And incidentally don't put wrong words in my mouth, and please don't quote that hack Chomsky. As a liberal I find him to embody the absolute worst of disoriented fuzzy brained sweater loving liberals. his whole Manufacturing Consent garbage of a book showed his true non understanding of media as a business. Also why don't you explain away Chomsky's Holocaust denial and genocide denial in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.

JnotG - I'm looking for sources on your claims about Chomsky here. Chomsky did write a forward to a book where he claimed that holocaust denial is not immediate proof that someone is Anti-Semetic, but that is not the same as denying the holocaust. Chomsky is a proponent of an absolute right to free speech, and was challenged by a friend (Serge Thion) to write a defense of free speech, even in the case of a "loathsome extremist". Chomsky made the case that holocaust denial is not, in and of itself, proof of anti-semetism. (I tend to agree, but mainly because of the Heinleim Doctrine - "never attribute to malice what can be explained more readily by stupidity"). He did this in defense of the free speech rights Robert Faurisson, a French Academic / Nazi, who then used it against his wishes in the foreword to his book... which denied the holocaust.

As for Cambodia, I highly recommend you read this piece by Christopher Hitchers - by no means my favourite author - but a piece where he goes through the claims in detail and demonstrates how much of it has been distorted, taken out of context or simply manufactured out of whole cloth.

 

[Oxymoron]

JnotG - I'm looking for sources on your claims about Chomsky here. Chomsky did write a forward to a book where he claimed that holocaust denial is not immediate proof that someone is Anti-Semetic, but that is not the same as denying the holocaust. Chomsky is a proponent of an absolute right to free speech, and was challenged by a friend (Serge Thion) to write a defense of free speech, even in the case of a "loathsome extremist". Chomsky made the case that holocaust denial is not, in and of itself, proof of anti-semetism. (I tend to agree, but mainly because of the Heinleim Doctrine - "never attribute to malice what can be explained more readily by stupidity"). He did this in defense of the free speech rights Robert Faurisson, a French Academic / Nazi, who then used it against his wishes in the foreword to his book... which denied the holocaust.

As for Cambodia, I highly recommend you read this piece by Christopher Hitchers - by no means my favourite author - but a piece where he goes through the claims in detail and demonstrates how much of it has been distorted, taken out of context or simply manufactured out of whole cloth.

Yes the 'old' Hitchens before he was bought and paid for, possibly blackmailed or maybe a combination. Whatever... certainly a great distinction between the two entities.

I think this about sums it up. Of course there are those who will deny it but it will be noticed they are the ones who are repeatedly highlighting the 'atrocities and human rights abuses' of certain Nations on the U.S hit list whilst studiously ignoring the U.S and its allies atrocities and human rights abuses; whilst also at the same time usually obfuscating that they are really advocating/justifying yet another war.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/a-timeline-of-cia-atrocities/5348804

CIA operations follow the same recurring script. First, American business interests abroad are threatened by a popular or democratically elected leader. The people support their leader because he intends to conduct land reform, strengthen unions, redistribute wealth, nationalize foreign-owned industry, and regulate business to protect workers, consumers and the environment. So, on behalf of American business, and often with their help, the CIA mobilizes the opposition. First it identifies right-wing groups within the country (usually the military), and offers them a deal: “We’ll put you in power if you maintain a favorable business climate for us.” The Agency then hires, trains and works with them to overthrow the existing government (usually a democracy). It uses every trick in the book: propaganda, stuffed ballot boxes, purchased elections, extortion, blackmail, sexual intrigue, false stories about opponents in the local media, infiltration and disruption of opposing political parties, kidnapping, beating, torture, intimidation, economic sabotage, death squads and even assassination. These efforts culminate in a military coup, which installs a right-wing dictator. The CIA trains the dictator’s security apparatus to crack down on the traditional enemies of big business, using interrogation, torture and murder. The victims are said to be “communists,” but almost always they are just peasants, liberals, moderates, labor union leaders, political opponents and advocates of free speech and democracy. Widespread human rights abuses follow.

Content from External Source

 

[JeffreyNotGeoffrey]

I take Chomsky to task for trying to have his cake and eat it too. While trying to say Faurisson was "apolitical" and "researching", he ignored glaring issues. I agree that one shouldn't assume malice, but with Holocaust denial, I throw that rule out the window if the person is old enough to drive a car or vote. Faurisson knew what he was doing. He was an academic. The problem was that he didn't use research. He cherry picked things to disprove the Holocaust. As for his political leanings, Faurisson pals around with far-right Neo-Nazi groups. That isn't apolitical. Chomsky has a really bad habit of inserting his foot in his mouth and never apologizing for being caught as such. I agree Faurisson (at least in America) should be able to say this garbage, but he absolutely should have been booted from any university for his perverse, racist "findings". However he did this in Europe, the House of the Dead. I completely understand why France, Germany, and others outlaw this kind of hate speech. To remind you about 6 MILLION men, women, and children were murdered in a variety of ways while much of the citizenship looked the other way. I understand why those people then did what they did, but I further understand why current governments outlaw such talk. Those wounds in Europe still have not healed, and the resurgence of Neo-Nazism is proof positive of why those countries need those laws.
Further where is the evidence that the Killing Fields were "overblown". Did Cambodia magically begin to grow crops of human skulls? The problem is that Chomsky HATES America for its flaws but gives huge passes to totalitarian and authoritarian regimes of the communist persuasion. The man needs to learn to stick to his "strengths", ie. linguistics. There is a reason why no reputable history scholars cite any of the garbage he pumps out. He's just a hypocrite and a self-hating Jew to boot.

 

[Pete Tar]

Yes the 'old' Hitchens before he was bought and paid for, possibly blackmailed or maybe a combination. Whatever... certainly a great distinction between the two entities.
....

What?
When you make statements like this as if they are common knowledge, are you just trolling, or can you present some rationale for this view?

 

[Edgukator]

I take Chomsky to task for trying to have his cake and eat it too. While trying to say Faurisson was "apolitical" and "researching", he ignored glaring issues. I agree that one shouldn't assume malice, but with Holocaust denial, I throw that rule out the window if the person is old enough to drive a car or vote. Faurisson knew what he was doing. He was an academic. The problem was that he didn't use research. He cherry picked things to disprove the Holocaust. As for his political leanings, Faurisson pals around with far-right Neo-Nazi groups. That isn't apolitical. Chomsky has a really bad habit of inserting his foot in his mouth and never apologizing for being caught as such. I agree Faurisson (at least in America) should be able to say this garbage, but he absolutely should have been booted from any university for his perverse, racist "findings". However he did this in Europe, the House of the Dead. I completely understand why France, Germany, and others outlaw this kind of hate speech. To remind you about 6 MILLION men, women, and children were murdered in a variety of ways while much of the citizenship looked the other way. I understand why those people then did what they did, but I further understand why current governments outlaw such talk. Those wounds in Europe still have not healed, and the resurgence of Neo-Nazism is proof positive of why those countries need those laws.
Further where is the evidence that the Killing Fields were "overblown". Did Cambodia magically begin to grow crops of human skulls? The problem is that Chomsky HATES America for its flaws but gives huge passes to totalitarian and authoritarian regimes of the communist persuasion. The man needs to learn to stick to his "strengths", ie. linguistics. There is a reason why no reputable history scholars cite any of the garbage he pumps out. He's just a hypocrite and a self-hating Jew to boot.

I absolutely agree that the use of the word "apolitical" when referring to Faurisson was a bone-headed statement, but for context, here is the full quote:

Let me add a final remark about Faurisson's alleged "anti-Semitism." Note first that even if Faurisson were to be a rabid anti-Semite and fanatic pro-Nazi -- such charges have been presented to me in private correspondence that it would be improper to cite in detail here -- this would have no bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy of the defense of his civil rights. On the contrary, it would make it all the more imperative to defend them since, once again, it has been a truism for years, indeed centuries, that it is precisely in the case of horrendous ideas that the right of free expression must be most vigorously defended; it is easy enough to defend free expression for those who require no such defense. Putting this central issue aside, is it true that Faurisson is an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi? As noted earlier, I do not know his work very well. But from what I have read -- largely as a result of the nature of the attacks on him -- I find no evidence to support either conclusion. Nor do I find credible evidence in the material that I have read concerning him, either in the public record or in private correspondence. As far as I can determine, he is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort.

What becomes clear is that Chomsky didn't actually know the works of Faurisson. He acknowledges that in the quote. "As noted earlier, I do not know his work very well." He was responding to the free speech claim... even if Faurisson was the rabid neo-nazi he actually was, Chomsky felt the duty to defend him on the grounds of free speech.

But here was your quote:

lso why don't you explain away Chomsky's Holocaust denial and genocide denial in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.

Chomsky didn't deny the holocaust. He supported the free speech rights of a Holocaust denier. Those are two very different things. You can legitimately take him to task for that - He was not aware of the record of the person he was defending - but by his own admission, had he been aware of the facts, he still would have defended him. To paraphrase Salman Rushdie, Free Speech doesn't end when someone says something we find disgusting, it begins there.

As for the denial of genocide in Cambodia, did you read the article I linked? Here's the TLR version:

- Chomsky is accused of supporting the Khmer Rouge and predicting, in 1972, that their rule would lead to "a new era of economic development and social justice". In actuality, he stated that he hoped that it would lead to those things. The first argument against him is effectively that he was not Nostradamus.
- A lot of the criticism comes from the book The Political Economy of Human Rights where Chomsky questions a double standard towards evidence in the media when used in Cambodia as opposed to US actions in North Vietnam. In doing so he questions why some of the accounts of the genocide were marginalised from media accounts while some were embraced despite dubious sources. To say, then, that this is denying or minimalising the genocide is simply wrong. To say that he was nitpicking the evidence may have more credibility, but just bare in mind that this was exactly the point he was making in the introduction of that book. Different burdens of evidence were applied to the US culpability than to the Communist culpability.

 

[JeffreyNotGeoffrey]

I agree I misstep quite often (especially in love lately). And it was a little much to paint Chomsky as an outright denier. Still that man could take a page out of my book, and just fess up. It is moderately cleansing, and it more academically honest to admit mistakes. With Faurisson it just seems that he waded into an issue without knowing enough about it, and it made him look very bad. Look before you leap as they say.