Zcom_simple

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

50

David Peterson's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/davidpeterson
Bio: I am an independent writer and researcher based in Chicago. (More)

All Peterson Blogs

A Barrel of Monkeys

By David Peterson at Jan 28, 2006


Change Text Size a- | A+

   "Hitler Lives."  "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Unreality
   Show." 
"Iranian Madman Walks Among Us."  "[A]
   grave threat to the United States and its allies in
   the Middle East, Europe, and globally."  "What Can
   We Learn from a Monster?"  "His ideology of hatred
   and Iran's building of a nuclear weapon to implement that ideology are the greatest threats to civilization as we know it."  "[B]razenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated."  "[F]anatics and tyrants." "President of a country that is probably the greatest sponsor of state terrorism."  "[V]ows regularly to destroy the country [of Israel]." "Normal craziness." 
"[A] petty and cruel dictator."  "[L]ittle weasel."  You get the picture.

How's this for evidence of the bandwagon-character of demonization campaigns within closed societies such as ours, where the nexus of tightly integrated institutions -- capital, state, media, and educative -- operate in a univocal fashion?  Between the day last week when the President of Iran's request to lay a wreath at the former site of the World Trade Center was rejected (officially by the New York City Police Department, though other hands surely were involved), and today, as the inaugural plenaries of the United Nations' 62nd Session wound down,  the personal smears directed singularly at the President of Iran, and the much more sweeping disinformation about Iran already placed into circulation in the States and elsewhere, must have reached an all-time high.  (For Iran, at least.)  It shows us how profoundly disenlightened are the people who serve these institutions, and how like-minded.  Repeatedly, they displayed their ignorance, their crassness, and their vulgarity, but also their ignorance of their ignorance, their crassness, and their vulgarity.  They may have told us next-to-nothing about their referent.  But they betrayed everything about themselves as well as the historical regime where shit like this smells like oil of lavender at $2000 per ounce. 

The low point, of course, occurred last Monday on the campus of Columbia University in New York City. There, Lee C. Bollinger, the president of the university, introduced its guest speaker with a tone usually reserved for a master addressing one of his slaves, or a prosecutor summing up his case against a defendant at trial -- one presumed to be guilty of all counts as charged.  Since the university's invitation to the President of Iran to participate in its inaugural School of International and Public Affairs - World Leaders Forum for the 2007-2008 academic year was seized upon by Bollinger to direct negative disinformation about Iran to the U.S. audience, and was thus exploited toward this end, it is important to recognize how thoroughly the assertions made and questions raised by Bollinger and by SIPA Dean John H. Coatsworth carried out this task. -- Under the covers of free inquiry and challenging the views of the President of Iran, critical elements of the Washington regime's disinformation against Iran were assumed to be true, with the President of Iran expected either to confirm their truth or to confess his sins. 

For the record, I'm simply going to post a lot of this material here.  In case anybody's interested, we can examine it in the comments section which follows at bottom.

I.  The Set-up

Excerpted from: "Statement Regarding Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Talk at Columbia University's World Leaders Forum," News Release, School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University.

President [Lee] Bollinger emphasized that such World Leaders Forum events must allow ample time for students and faculty to pose questions that challenge the views expressed by the speakers.  John H. Coatsworth, Dean of the School of International and Public Affairs, confirmed that the Iranian president had agreed to this format. Dean Coatsworth will moderate the question and answer period following Ahmadinejad's speech.

President Bollinger will introduce the event by challenging President Ahmadinejad on a number of his controversial statements and his government's policies, including hisdenial of the Holocaust and his call for the destruction of the State of Israel. The US government has accused Ahmadinejad's government of supporting terrorism and developing nuclear weapons capacity. Human rights groups have charged Iran with suppressing dissent and women's rights. Columbia students and faculty will themselves have an opportunity to question Iran's leader on these and other issues.

II. The Coup de grâce 

Excerpted from Columbia University President Lee C. Bollinger's introductory remarks on Monday, September 24.  The printed text provides six organizational subheadings, which I am observing below.  Under each of them, Bollinger directed one or more rhetorical questions at his audience.  (For my source, see "President Lee C. Bollinger's Introductory Remarks at SIPA-World Leaders Forum with President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad," Columbia News, September 24, 2007. -- Note that I am not reproducing everything that the printed text of Bollinger's remarks punctuates with a question mark.) 

1. THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN ON SCHOLARS, JOURNALISTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATES

Bollinger: Why have women, members of the Baha'i faith, homosexuals and so many of our academic colleagues become targets of persecution in your country?....Why in a letter last week to the Secretary General of the UN did Akbar Gangi [sic], Iran's leading political dissident, and over 300 public intellectuals, writers and Nobel Laureates express such grave concern that your inflamed dispute with the West is distracting the world's attention from the intolerable conditions your regime has created within Iran?  In particular, the use of the Press Law to ban writers for criticizing the ruling system.  Why are you so afraid of Iranian citizens expressing their opinions for change?

2.  THE DENIAL OF THE HOLOCAUST

Bollinger: The truth is that the Holocaust is the most documented event in human history.   Because of this, and for many other reasons, your absurd comments about the “debate” over the Holocaust both defy historical truth and make all of us who continue to fear humanity's capacity for evil shudder at this closure of memory, which is always virtue's first line of defense. Will you cease this outrage? 

3. THE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL

Bollinger: Twelve days ago, you said that the state of Israel “cannot continue its life.”  This echoed a number of inflammatory statements you have delivered in the last two years, including in October 2005 when you said that Israel should be “wiped off the map.”  Columbia has over 800 alumni currently living in Israel.  As an institution we have deep ties with our colleagues there.  I personally have spoken out in the most forceful terms against proposals to boycott Israeli scholars and universities, saying that such boycotts might as well include Columbia.  More than 400 college and university presidents in this country have joined in that statement.  My question, then, is: Do you plan on wiping us off the map, too? 

4.  FUNDING TERRORISM

Bollinger: According to reports by the Council on Foreign Relations, it's well documented that Iran is a state sponsor of terror that funds such violent group as the Lebanese Hezbollah, which Iran helped organize in the 1980s, the Palestinian Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.  While your predecessor government was instrumental in providing the US with intelligence and base support in its 2001 campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan, your government is now undermining American troops in Iraq by funding, arming, and providing safe transit to insurgent leaders like Muqtada al-Sadr and his forces.  There are a number of reports that also link your government with Syria's efforts to destabalize [sic] the fledgling Lebanese government through violence and political assassination.  My question is this:  Why do you support well-documented terrorist organizations that continue to strike at peace and democracy in the Middle East, destroying lives and civil society in the region? 

5. PROXY WAR AGAINST U.S. TROOPS IN IRAQ

Bollinger: In a briefing before the National Press Club earlier this month, General David Petraeus reported that arms supplies from Iran, including 240mm rockets and explosively formed projectiles, are contributing to “a sophistication of attacks that would by no means be possible without Iranian support.”  A number of Columbia graduates and current students are among the brave members of our military who are serving or have served in Iraq and Afghanistan.  They, like other Americans with sons, daughters, fathers, husbands and wives serving in combat, rightly see your government as the enemy.  Can you tell them and us why Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq by arming Shi'a militia targeting and killing U.S. troops? 

6. IRAN'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM AND INTERNATIONAL SANCTIONS

Bollinger: This week the United Nations Security Council is contemplating expanding sanctions for a third time because of your government's refusal to suspend its uranium-enrichment program.  You continue to defy this world body by claiming a right to develop peaceful nuclear power, but this hardly withstands scrutiny when you continue to issue military threats to neighbors.  Last week, French President Sarkozy made clear his lost patience with your stall tactics; and even Russia and China have shown concern.  Why does your country continue to refuse to adhere to international standards for nuclear weapons verification in defiance of agreements that you have made with the UN nuclear agency?  And why have you chosen to make the people of your country vulnerable to the effects of international economic sanctions and threaten to engulf the world with nuclear annihilation? 

III. The Coup de grâce again

Excerpted from Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs Dean John H. Coatsworth, who served as the event's "Moderator."  My interest here is to highlight the range of questions funneled through Coatsworth to Ahmadinejad and the greater audience beyond.  (For my source, see "President Ahmadinejad Delivers Remarks at Columbia University," Congressional Quarterly Transcripts Wire, September 24, 2007 (as posted to the WashingtonPost.com).) 

1. Coatsworth: The first question is: Do you or your government seek the destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish state?

2. Coatsworth: Mr. President, I think many members of our audience would like to hear a clearer answer to that question. That is... (APPLAUSE) The question is: Do you or your government seek the destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish state? And I think you could answer that question with a single word, either yes or no.

3. Coatsworth: (Off-mike) second question, which was posed by President Bollinger earlier and comes from a number of other students: Why is your government providing aid to terrorists? Will you stop doing so and permit international monitoring to certify that you have stopped?

4. Coatsworth: Mr. President, a further set of questions challenged your view of the Holocaust. Since the evidence that this occurred in Europe in the 1940s, as a result of the actions of the German Nazi government, since that -- those facts -- are well documented, why are you calling for additional research?  There seems to be no purpose in doing so, other than to question whether the Holocaust actually occurred as a historical fact. Can you explain why you believe more research is needed into the facts of what are -- what is -- what are incontrovertible?

5. Coatsworth: Let me just -- let me pursue this a bit further.  It is difficult to have a scientific discussion if there isn't at least some basis, some empirical basis, some agreement about what the facts are. So calling for research into the facts when the facts are so well established represents for many a challenging of the facts themselves and a denial that something terrible occurred in Europe in those years. (APPLAUSE) Let me move on to... Mr. President, another student asks -- Iranian women are now denied basic human rights and your government has imposed draconian punishments, including execution on Iranian citizens who are homosexuals. Why are you doing those things?

6. Coatsworth: Mr. President, the question isn't about criminal and drug smugglers. The question was about sexual preference and women.

7. Coatsworth: Mr. President, I have two questions which I'll put together.  One is, what did you hope to accomplish by speaking at Columbia today? And the second is, what would you have said if you were permitted to visit the site of the September 11th tragedy?

8. Coatsworth: Mr. President, a number of questions have asked about your nuclear program. Why is your government seeking to acquire enriched uranium suitable for nuclear weapons?  Will you stop doing so?

9. Coatsworth: Mr. President, a final question. I know your time is short and that you need to move on. Is Iran prepared to open broad discussions with the government of the United States? What would Iran hope to achieve in such discussions? How do you see, in the future, a resolution of the points of conflict between the government of the United States and the government of Iran?

Coatsworth: I'm sorry that President Ahmadinejad's schedule makes it necessary for him to leave before he's been able to answer many of the questions that we have, or even answer some of the ones that we posed to him.

More than one translation of the President of Iran's prepared and extemporaneous remarks at Columbia University are available.  So, too, are more than one videostream.

"President Ahmadinejad Delivers Remarks at Columbia University," Congressional Quarterly Transcripts Wire, September 24, 2007 (as posted to the WashingtonPost.com
World Leaders Forum (Videostream), School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University, September 24, 2007
Ahmadinejad at Columbia University -- Q&A Part 1 
Ahmadinejad at Columbia University -- Q&A Part 2 
Ahmadinejad at Columbia University -- Q&A Part 3 
Ahmadinejad at Columbia University -- Q&A Part 4

Unfortunately, I don't speak Farsi, so I can't tell you which translation is the best one.

Equally laughable were three different actions by the two houses of the U.S. Congress: Two in the House of Representatives; one in the Senate.  Since all three of them were in honor of the Iranian President's visit to the States, we may as well hyperlink them here. 

Bill: "To enhance United States diplomatic efforts with respect to Iran by imposing additional economic sanctions against Iran, and for other purposes" ( HR 1400 ), U.S. House of Representatives 
- U.S. House Vote: 397 - 16 (19 not voting), September 25, 2007. -- The 16 voting against it were:  Neil Abercrombie (D - HI), Tammy Baldwin (D - WI), Roscoe Bartlett (R - MD), Earl Blumenauer (D - OR), John Conyers (D - MI), Keith Ellison (D - MN), Jeff Flake (R - AZ), Wayne Gilchrest (R - MD), Maurice Hinchey (R - NY), Barbara Lee (D - CA), Jim McDermott (D - WA), George Miller (D - CA), Gwen Moore (D - WI), John Olver (D - MA), Ron Paul (R - TX), Pete Stark (D - CA).  (Note that Dennis Kucinich (D - OH) did not vote on this bill.)

Bill: "Strongly condemning the United Nations Human Rights Council for ignoring severe human rights abuses in various countries, while choosing to unfairly target Israel by including it as the only country permanently placed on the Council's agenda" ( HR 557 ), U.S. House of Representatives
- U.S. House Vote: 416 - 2 (14 not voting), September 25, 2007. -- Only Dennis Kucinich (D - OH) and Ron Paul (R. - TX) voted against it.

Amendment: "To express the sense of the Senate regarding Iran" ( S 3071 ), Senator Jon Kyl (R. - AZ)
- U.S. Senate Vote: 76 - 22, September 26, 2007. -- The 22 voting against it: Joe Biden (D - DE), Jeff Bingaman (D - NM), Barbara Boxer (D - CA), Sherrod Brown (D - OH), Robert Byrd (D - WV), Maria Cantwell (D - WA), Chris Dodd (D - CT), Russ Feingold (D - WI), Chuck Hagel (R - NE), Tom Harkin (D - IA), Daniel Inouye (D - HI), Edward Kennedy (D - MA), John Kerry (D - MA), Amy Klobuchar (D - MN), Patrick Leahy (D - VT), Blanche Lincoln (D - AR), Richard Lugar (R - IN), Claire McCaskill (D - MO), Bernard Sanders (I - VT), Jon Tester (D - MT), James Webb (D - VA), Ron Wyden (D - OR).  (Note that neither John McCain (R - AZ) nor Barack Obama (D - IL) voted on this amendment.  It is way past time for Obama to stand up and either vote with or against these lunatic actions in the Senate.)

Never to be outdone is the relative immediacy -- and knee-jerk jingoism, unlike Columbia University's more thoughtful brand -- provided by broadcast and cable television channels in the States.  For the four-and-a-half days the President of Iran was on the ground, the one I'm reproduing here was perhaps the worst out of a barrelful of rotten apples.  Though the competition is stiff, and it's really hard to say.)
Excerpted from:
CNN
September 24, 2007
SHOW: GLENN BECK 7:00 PM EST
President Ahmadinejad Visits U.S.
BYLINE: Glenn Beck, Allan Chernoff
GUESTS: Jim Gilchrist, David Weprin, Peter King, Ray Tranchant
HIGHLIGHT: The president of Iran visits America and speaks at Columbia University, revealing insights into his agenda; The father of a girl killed by an illegal alien drunk driver is working for change.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) 
GLENN BECK, HOST (voice-over): Tonight: New York pulls out the welcome mat for President Ahmadinejad. We`ll have the latest, including his speech at Columbia and his press conference. It doesn`t get crazier than this.Plus, an illegal alien kills a teenage girl. This guy was drunk driving, had multiple prior arrests. Why is he still here? We`ll talk with the girl`s father, who now has a plan to get tough with illegals.And presidential hopefuls and, yours truly, believe it or not, address the NRA over the weekend and took calls from our wives.
RUDY GIULIANI (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Hello, dear. I`m talking to the members of the NRA right now. Would you like to say hello?
BECK: All this and more tonight.(END VIDEOTAPE)
BECK: Hello, America.It serves as just another wake-up call. Right now, Satan is among us, or the next closest thing. Right at this very moment, Iran`s President Ahmadinejad is here in New York, just a couple of miles away from where I sit on American soil.He spoke at Columbia University this afternoon, and tomorrow he`s going to address the General Assembly of the United Nations.If you don`t think this guy is evil, I want you to look at this clip from today`s speech at Columbia, where he talks about homosexuality in Iran.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD, PRESIDENT OF IRAN (through translator): In Iran, we don`t have homosexuals like in your country. We don`t have that in our country. In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon.(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: Yes. He was tying this into the death penalty and drug dealers, by the way.I realize that foreign leaders, even scary ones, visit the United States all the time. But the impact of this visit by Iran`s Ahmadinejad is different. That`s why I`m devoting almost my entire show to it tonight. And if you agree that Iran is our enemy, then stick with us, because there`s some stuff you have to see.If you`re unsure if they`re an enemy or not, do not miss a second of tonight`s program. It`s just that important.Now, Mahmoud in Manhattan. Ahmadinejad, invited guest of Columbia University today and because of that, here`s "The Point" tonight.I believe Columbia University should lose every penny of public funding they get. I`m sick and tired of these universities and me paying for it and you, too. And here`s how I got there.I believe in academic freedom, but we have to draw the line somewhere. Ahmadinejad is a Holocaust denier, an Islamic extremist, a madman hell-bent on getting a nuclear weapon and a terrorist. And that`s just not my opinion. That`s the State Department`s opinion.This is a guy who is trying to bring back the messiah through bloodshed and chaos. You don`t believe me? Fine. Believe him. In 30 minutes, I`ll give you the "Real Story".Ahmadinejad has no business spreading his message of hate to American college students just so a media and cash whore, like Columbia University, can elevate their own status. It is exactly the propaganda that the Iranian president is looking for.Here`s how Columbia president Lee Bollinger justified his decision on "Good Morning America" today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEE BOLLINGER, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT: The reasons for doing this go to freedom of speech and academic freedom. They`re fundamental.And what`s at stake here is really the opportunity to be able to learn about the world and to know about people, even dictators, even people who are highly repressive and highly dangerous as Dr. Ahmadinejad.(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: I`ve got to tell you, I don`t need to have ebola to understand it`s evil.Here`s where it gets crazier. Here`s where Columbia dean John Coatsworth says that he would have had Hitler speak on campus.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN COATSWORTH, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY DEAN: If Hitler had come to the university -- Columbia University in 1939, I would have been outside with the peaceful protesters, or if I had been dean, I would have been inside presenting him to our students to be challenged.(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: You just heard in their own words why Columbia`s leadership is thoughtless, irresponsible and quite possibly complicit in helping Ahmadinejad spread his evil propaganda. Doesn`t matter what happens here. It`s what happens over there.And here`s what you need to know tonight, America. Yes, Columbia is a private university, and they can do whatever they want. But they still receive a ton of public funding. Last year, Albany gave them over $22 million of taxpayer money and saved them countless more in low interest loans.Once you start legitimizing terrorists and showing a complete lack of respect, common sense and moral responsibility, Columbia, I say we cut you off. You want to bring the devil to town and have him speak to your students, that`s fine. But don`t expect me to pay the Bill.CNN`s Allan Chernoff was at Columbia today.Allan, I didn`t see the protesters. Who were these people protesting out front?
ALLAN CHERNOFF, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, we had hundreds of protesters out here. And I should say, there were actually three main protests. One over here along Broadway, one inside of campus, in front of the library, and then there was a third protest, actually, in midtown right across from the United Nations. And you can be sure that there will be plenty of people out there on Tuesday, as well. But there were -- a broad range of protesters.
BECK: So who -- who were there? Was there a large contingent of Muslims that were saying, "Don`t -- not in my name you don`t get away with this"? Was there a large contingent of anyone from GLAAD or anyone from the National Organization of Women who were saying you shouldn`t stone homosexuals or women?
CHERNOFF: I`d say the majority of the protesters appeared to be Jewish folks responding to the Iranian president`s denial of the Holocaust and to his call for the destruction of Israel. That was really the predominant group.
BECK: OK. Allan, thank you.Now whether you agree or disagree with Columbia`s decision to have Ahmadinejad speak on campus, it is shamefully hypocritical. They have denied ROTC access to their campus. They have disinvinted the anti-illegal immigration group the Minutemen.It seems to me if you just don`t agree with Columbia`s liberal agenda then you just don`t get access to their precious academic freedom.Joining me now is Jim Gilchrist. He`s the founder of the Minuteman Project. And New York City Councilman David Weprin.Let me start with you, Jim. It`s my understanding that Columbia University decided to invoke -- to invite you back this year after the debacle last year. But then they had an emergency meeting with the students and revoked that invitation. Is that correct?
JIM GILCHRIST, FOUNDER, THE MINUTEMAN PROJECT: That`s my understanding speaking with Dr. David Isenbach (ph), who was trying to orchestrate my appearance there this year.That`s what happened. There was some emergency meeting when word got out on campus that the Minutemen are coming. They had to revoke my invitation, which two months ago they had approved. The same Columbia Political Union. It`s called CPU.
BECK: It`s my understanding that you support Mahmoud Ahmadinejad coming to Columbia.
GILCHRIST: Glenn, I support the First Amendment. And we`re talking here, in this particular case, Glenn, a very razor-thin, narrow threshold that we`re walking upon with bringing this man here.This Ahmadinejad apparently has been accused of being an outright terrorist. He`s been responsible for the deaths of many members of American armed forces and innocent people in the Mideast. If that is true, I would have to say he should not be here, but I cannot -- I am not God, and I can`t take someone`s freedom of speech away.BECK: OK. I`ve got to tell you, Jim, those things are true. It is confirmed now that Iran is supplying people with the arms to kill our soldiers. He is directly responsible for it. He is directly responsible for the stoning of women and homosexuals in Iran, and I find it amazing that Columbia University won`t have you speak, who, by the way, I applaud you in your efforts. Won`t have you speak, but they`ll have out and out evil speak to their students.David, what part of -- what part of evil does Columbia not understand?
DAVID WEPRIN, NEW YORK CITY COUNCILMAN: I don`t understand. I think they made a grave mistake by giving a forum to a -- not a world leader but really a world terrorist, a world gangster. Someone that has been linked to terrorism, to killing of American lives, has denied the Holocaust, has called for the destruction of the United States and Israel.This is not the person that a major institution, probably the -- the major institution in the city of New York, of higher learning, one of the most prestigious institutions. To give this terrorist this type of forum is not free speech.
BECK: You know, in the same speech that he said that Israel doesn`t have a right to exist and he`d run the Jews into the sea, he also said, imagine a world without America. This is not a -- you know, this isn`t a guy that has an awful lot of subtlety to him.Jim, back to you. Did you see the speech at all? Were you at all...
GILCHRIST: Yes, I...
BECK: Were you at all intrigued that they came over, tipped the podium over on you, chased you out, and yet they treated him with dignity to the point to where they were applauding him?
GILCHRIST: Glenn, when you have student body comprised of Paleolithic mentalities -- that means caveman mentalities for those students at Columbia who don`t know the difference. When you have that mentality, that anarchist mentality, you`re certainly seeking to promote something evil. You want to give notoriety and promenade the macabre parts of our society, rather than some good parts.And they did get exactly what they wanted. Unfortunately, they`ve set a precedence, where now other universities will probably try to outdo them and bring someone even worse in.
BECK: Yes. David, I know you say that you don`t think that state or local funding should be cut off for Columbia University. I have to tell you, if the KKK were running a school, even if they built hospitals and -- and had day care centers, I`d still say cut the funding off for them.These guys are pumping in really bad stuff into our -- into the heads of our next generation, and I don`t want to pay for it.
WEPRIN: Well, I hear what you have to say. The problem with cutting off funding is the funding benefits a lot of citizens in the city.
BECK: Again, if the KKK were funding hospitals, would you say that same argument?
WEPRIN: Well, I`d look closely at their projects, but at the same time, each project has to really be considered on a case-by-case basis. But I think there should be some repercussions to the administration at Columbia for allowing this terrorist to speak and give him this kind of forum...
BECK: I got to tell you.
WEPRIN: ... which really was not a forum of free speech.
BECK: Yes.
WEPRIN: He actually had revisionist testimony. All of a sudden, he came up with answers that did not match any other answers he`s done before.
BECK: I have to tell you, gentlemen, I think America is sick of this. We live in a capitalist society. These -- the funding to these universities should stop. I`m tired of paying for the hate and the anti- American rhetoric.Now, time to find out where I`m wrong. I think Columbia University should lose all of its public funding for letting President Ahmadinejad speak on their campus. Agree or disagree? Go to CNN.com/Glenn and cast your vote right now.Coming up, after being denied a visit to Ground Zero, apparently President Tom isn`t giving up. Iran`s state-run news agency is reporting that he plans to visit with the families of 9/11 victims. That could be just nothing more than shocking propaganda. We`ll delve into it next. Plus, a closer look at what Ahmadinejad told "60 Minutes". He can`t lie. Well, there seems to be a little-known loophole, and I`ll explain in tonight`s "Real Story".And just a reminder: tonight`s show is brought to you by the Sleep Number Bed by Select Comfort. I want you to watch this next commercial, then find a Sleep Number Bed near you at a Select Comfort store.
BECK: Coming up, that little Rudy phone call stunt at the National Rifle Association over the weekend. Did you see it? I had front row seats for that, and some of the other headlining presidential candidates did, as well. How did they all measure up with the NRA? My scorecard in just a bit.But first, it`s bad enough that Iran`s President Ahmadinejad is in New York City today. But he actually had the audacity to request an official visit to Ground Zero prior to his arrival. Fortunately, that official request was denied, even though he has said he`s going anyway.Now the Farz news agency. This is an arm of the Iranian government is reporting that he`s planning to meet with families of the 9/11 victims.It`s important to note that Farz, and their report, it has not yet been officially confirmed by anything not directly connected to evil. So it could be nothing more than propaganda.But, if it`s true, if Ahmadinejad does meet with 9/11 families, it would be exactly the same as Adolf Hitler meeting with the families of Holocaust survivors. Ironically, Ahmadinejad does not believe the Holocaust ever happened.Representative Peter King is a Republican congressman from New York.Congressman, good to see you. I have to ask you, to just touch on the quote that you had last week that somebody said that you had said that there are just too many mosques in America. Can you explain that, sir?
REP. PETER KING (R), NEW YORK: Sure. What I said, and actually said repeatedly for the last four or five years, is there are too many mosques in America who do not cooperate with the law enforcement, who have allowed radical elements to take over their leadership.And it`s really unfortunate that, in this case, "The Politico" newspaper in Washington chose to take a remark totally out of context, out of the context of a one-hour interview three weeks after I gave the interview and try to say that I was saying there were too many mosques. I`ve never even hinted at that.It`s clear what I meant, and the reporter who did the interview, by the way, never asked me about it during the interview. This was something afterwards they were trying to publicize.But I do think it is important for us to say there are too many mosques in America who are beholden to radical interests and they -- there are number that are under surveillance, and that should be on the record. And we shouldn`t run away from that issue.
BECK: Congressman, I`ve got to tell you, I couldn`t agree with you more. There are -- I have yet to see a report, and there will be on this program. I have yet to see a report on what those mosques are, who -- who are the radical clerics that are turning our own citizens into radicalized Islamists, and it will be on our program. So keep fighting the good fight on that.
KING: Thank you Glenn.
BECK: There are unconfirmed reports that Ahmadinejad is going to meet with 9/11 victim families. Also that he`s meeting with Muslim leaders here in the United States.If that`s true, is there anything to -- to questioning of any of these people, questioning to, if he is meeting with Muslim leaders here in America...
KING: Certainly...
BECK: ... what the conversation was?
KING: Muslim leaders should not be meeting Ahmadinejad. They should be focused on getting the Muslim community mobilized in the war against terrorism. Meeting with Ahmadinejad would send the worst possible message of all.As far as the 9/11 families, I had probably close to 150 victims in my district who were killed, murdered on September 11. Many police officers, firefighters, people at Cantor Fitzgerald and the brokerage houses downtown. And it was absolutely horrible to go through that.And I can`t understand why any family would allow themselves to be used this way. Again, we don`t know if they are going to do it or not. If they do, they would be making a terrible mistake.And again, I -- my heart goes out to those families. If they do meet, they`re probably going through some sort of anguish. But the signal that would send, to have a known terrorist, a war criminal as far as I`m concerned, Ahmadinejad, to be giving him any type of credibility at all or to allow the sacredness of 9/11 to reflect on...
BECK: Well, but listen -- but hang on just a second. Columbia University, I mean, Trotsky talked about useful idiots. Columbia is both useful and a group of idiots for letting him on campus to speak.Does Columbia get any federal dollars, and is there any reason or any way to cut some of this funding off?
KING: Well, the reason I think federal funding should be cut from Columbia University is because they don`t allow ROTC on their campus, which is absolutely disgraceful, especially in time of war.But it was also totally wrong for them to invite Ahmadinejad, and it showed the real intellectual pretense and arrogance of people in the universities. They really thought that, by them asking quote, unquote, "tough questions" that that was going to put Ahmadinejad in its place.
BECK: No.
KING: As if Columbia University was going to unravel the evil of Ahmadinejad.
BECK: Yes.
KING: The fact is, he got tremendous publicity. He got the respectability of appearing at a major American university. And that`s going to be telecast all over the world, especially in the Arab world.And Glenn, here`s what I`m concerned about. A great, great majority of Iranians support us and are opposed to Ahmadinejad. When they see this, it sends them the totally wrong signal.
BECK: Congressman, thank you very much. I appreciate it.I found it also interesting that they spray-painted over the Columbia University logo on the podium. I`ve never seen anybody do that before.Now another installment of what we call "Missed by the Media". This is a feature where we expose the messages of hate broadcast in other parts of the world, which has rarely seen the light of day here in America.Today, Columbia University`s guest of honor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, speaking to a hometown crowd. Take a listen, and you tell me whether you want this guy speaking to our kids in our universities.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD, PRESIDENT OF IRAN: (SPEAKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE)GRAPHIC: (The Americans) should leave our region. All the countries in the region should be vigilant and should know that, with the help of God, America`s strength is fading. America`s straw-like strength and satanic rule over the world is about to be annihilated.(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: More on the face of evil here with Ahmadinejad in just a second…
.
…………
BECK: Well, welcome to the "Real Story." This is the part of the show where we usually expose how the media isn`t telling you the truth, but tonight I`m going to shift gears and expose someone else who is lying to you. Last night, Iranian President Ahmadinejad -- we like to call him President Tom on this program -- went on "60 Minutes" to kick off his U.S. media propaganda tour, and here are a few of his greatest lies.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD, PRESIDENT OF IRAN (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): ...obviously are very much against any terrorist action and any killing.
SCOTT PELLEY, REPORTER, "60 MINUTES": Mr. President, can you tell me that you are not sending weapons to Iraq? Very simple, very directly.
AHMADINEJAD: We don`t need to do that.
PELLEY: For the sake of clarity, because there is so much concern in the world about this next question, please give me the most direct answer you can: Is it your goal to build a nuclear bomb?
AHMADINEJAD: You have to appreciate we don`t need a nuclear bomb. We don`t need that.(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: I have to tell you, I looked into his eyes last night, and all I saw was evil. This guy oozes evil. Anyway, to sum up the whole interview, Iran doesn`t need to send bombs into Iraq. They don`t need a nuclear weapon. They hate war. They love peace and teddy bears. Just in case you think that`s maybe what he really thinks, he`s being less than honest with you. President Tom made sure to slip in this little bit of reassurance.(END VIDEO CLIP)
AHMADINEJAD: What I am saying, I am being very sincere here. I`m a Muslim. I cannot tell a lie.(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: Oh, well, apparently now he`s the George Washington of all of Iran. Unfortunately for us, the "Real Story" is that, in some warped views of Islam, lying is not only permissible, but it is encouraged, so long as that lie will further the cause. The cause? I`ll tell you exactly what that cause is here in just a bit.But the point is, we must stop pretending that this man`s threats are empty. When I was about 30 years old and I`m trying to figure out life, I picked up and bought a copy of "Mein Kampf" for the first time. I didn`t read it for Hitler`s propaganda. I knew who that guy was. I read it to answer one question that had been bothering me since I was a kid: Did the Germans know what Hitler was planning on doing? The answer, unfortunately, was yes.And while I know it`s hard to admit, some day the world may very well look back at us with the same question I had when I read "Mein Kampf." Did they know? Then they`ll watch Ahmadinejad`s interviews, they`ll read his speeches, they`ll listen to his threats, and they will wonder why, in the famous words of Edmund Burke, why did good men do nothing?Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, he is the founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. Zuhdi, Muslims in America, non-Muslims in America, everybody is turning a blind eye to this guy and not taking him at his word. Big mistake? Huge mistake?
DR. M. ZUHDI JASSER, AMERICAN ISLAMIC FORUM FOR DEMOCRACY: Very, very big mistake, Glenn. I can`t emphasize that more in that, you know, he disgraces Muslims. And by saying that, because he`s a Muslim he can`t lie, this man hasn`t said a truth in his entire life. He is a born liar and uses the religion for his own power trip. And as the senator said today, he`s a megalomaniac.And for us to give him a podium and to allow him to spread his vile -- you know, I got a press release today from CAIR saying this was time for dialogue with the Iranian president. Give me a break. This guy has suffocated dissidents. He`s suffocated journalists and students. And to come to a university and teach them about democracy and free speech is the summit of hypocrisy.
BECK: I mean, why is it that people don`t take him at his word when he says, "I`ll run Jews into the sea"? "Soon, the West will burn with the fire of the Islamic fury"? What? What does it take?
JASSER: You know, it`s interesting. My family a few generations ago escaped the oppression of the Baathists in Syria. And we are taught in my family to remember that, because we can`t forget. I think Americans and many in the West seem to have forgot what dictators and thuggery and thugs can do.And we can`t allow ourselves to be lulled into complacency by living in the freedom and liberty of America and not looking these people in the face and looking at their societies, where they stone women, where they deny gays full rights, and it`s just -- it`s pathetic for us not to know this and talk about it.
BECK: Zuhdi, in that note from CAIR, did they say that they were protesting at all his -- anything that he said?
JASSER: Absolutely not. And just as the Khatami visit a year ago, they said that it`s a time for dialogue. No criticism about human rights. No criticism about free speech in Iran. No encouragement of dissidents to change that government from a theocracy to a liberal, freedom-loving democracy, not just for democrats and democracies to control the minority, but to give free rights for the minority.
BECK: Well, I have to tell you, Zuhdi, thank you very much for everything that you do. I have to tell you, America, I`m going to write the National Organization of Women, GLAAD, CAIR. I would really like to hear where they were, why are they not protesting someone that says homosexuals should be killed, and women should be stoned to death, and who are so grossly misusing their religion. That will be on tomorrow`s program. Hopefully, we`ll have an update.Now, when President Tom speaks in front of the U.N. General Assembly tomorrow, you`ll likely hear all the typical rhetoric about how peaceful they are and blah, blah, blah. But if his previous addresses are any indication, the media will probably ignore what is perhaps the most important part of his speech. Here he is at the U.N. in 2005.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AHMADINEJAD (through translator): Almighty lord, I pray to you to hasten the emergence of your last repository, the promised one, that perfect and pure human being, the one that will fill this world with justice and peace.(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: OK. This is what he said at the end of his speech last year as well at the U.N. After calling for the return of the promised one, Ahmadinejad left the stage in 2005 and said to a cleric, and I quote, "I felt that all of a sudden the atmosphere changed and, for 27 to 28 minutes, the leaders did not blink," end quote. President Ahmadinejad has been quietly talking about his belief -- and this is important that you understand this -- that we are in the end days. The real story is, he`s not burying this lead anymore. Listen to his opening remarks this afternoon at Columbia.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AHMADINEJAD (through translator): Oh god, hasten the arrival of Imam Al-Mahdi and grant him good health and victory, and make us his followers and those who attest to his rightfulness.(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: I hope you`re starting to hear a pattern here. This guy is openly praying for the return of the Mahdi in almost every speech, and now he`s starting his speeches with that, yet no one in the media is even bothering to do their homework on what that really means. Basically, think of the Mahdi as the Shiite Muslim version of the second coming of Jesus Christ, but unlike Christians, the twelvers -- as they`re called, President Tom is a twelver -- believe that they can hasten the Mahdi`s return by creating the right conditions for it. Unfortunately for us, those conditions are pretty simple: chaos, war, bloodshed, because only then can the Mahdi return with peace and justice.Thing about that. Ahmadinejad must usher in chaos and war before he can fulfill his destiny. That is why he wants a nuclear program; that is why he threatens Israel and the West; and that is why he`s killing our soldiers in Iraq. To him, the United States is the only thing stopping the war and chaos that he needs. And believe it or not, that makes us the Great Satan, otherwise known in the West, to you and me, as the literal anti-Christ. When your politics are your religion, it is impossible to understand one without first understanding the other.Joel Rosenberg is the author of "Epicenter: How the Current Rumblings in the Middle East Will Change the World." Joel, this guy -- nobody gets this. Everybody says you`re nuts and you shouldn`t take him at his word. He is telling us what he is going to do.
JOEL ROSENBERG, AUTHOR, "EPICENTER": He certainly is, Glenn. And I think you`ve picked up on a really important point, that in his previous trips to the United States in 2005 and 2006, he ended his speeches at the United Nations by praying for the Islamic messiah, known as the Mahdi, this just and promised one, to arrive. But now you`re absolutely right, he is leading with that.And this is interesting because of the timing. When Ahmadinejad was elected in June of 2005, he began telling people that the end of the world was just two or three years away and that the way to hasten the coming of the Mahdi, the Islamic messiah, was to annihilate Israel, the Little Satan, in his view, and the United States, the Great Satan.And now we are two years into that, right? We`re now in the fall of 2007, two years later. We don`t know exactly his timetable, but we know what he`s been doing over the last two years: building military alliances with Russia, China and North Korea, three nuclear powers; building 3,000, that we know of, centrifuges to enrich uranium; and building alliances with Syria and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon to prepare for this annihilation.
BECK: I`ve only got a minute. We have so much to cover. Would you come on the radio show with me tomorrow and cover this in detail?
ROSENBERG: Sure.
BECK: Real quick, this guy is so dangerous, and these twelvers are so dangerous, that the Ayatollah Khomeini back in 1979 banned them, tried to kill them all, because they are just so volatile. But the 12th imam does not come back to Iran. This is critical that you understand this, because both Osama bin Laden say this is important, and President Tom says this is important. Where does the 12th imam return?
ROSENBERG: He goes to Iraq, to Karbala. He first comes to Mecca, then Medina, but he then goes to Iraq. And in the conditions of chaos and carnage, that`s where he emerges to take over the world and create an Islamic caliphate where, as one of his key advisers, the Ayatollah Khamenei said -- and I quote him in "Epicenter" -- the Mahdi will offer the religion of Islam to the Jews and Christians. If they accept, they`ll be spared. Otherwise, they will be killed.
BECK: You don`t have to believe that we`re in the tribulation. We don`t have to believe that the United States is the literal anti-Christ, but he does, and that`s important. We`ll see you tomorrow on the radio program.
ROSENBERG: OK.
BECK: That`s the "Real Story" tonight.
………
BECK: Thank you, sir.Coming up next, we`ll go live -- kind of -- to Columbia University for an update on those anti-Ahmadinejad protests. There is one group that was not protesting President Ahmadinejad today. When we come back, I`ll give you the shocking details.
BECK: Well, New York has never been more pleasant than it is this week. Roads are cut off. We`ve got Coast Guard ships in the river. And Ahmadinejad is speaking at Columbia University.Joining me now on the scene is my radio producer, Stu, Stu Burguire.Hello, Stu.
STU BURGUIERE, "GLENN BECK" CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Glenn. How are you?
BECK: Oh, I know you`ve had a good day being at Columbia University.
BURGUIERE: Yes, Glenn, Ahmadinejad-mania is underway right now. I mean, it`s just been fantastic out here. The cleanup is going on. To give you just a little perspective, bigger than Woodstock `94, not as big as the original.BECK: Really?
BURGUIERE: It just -- yes, it was a little disappointing overall in ticket sales. There were the typical -- the groupies were out, the Ahmadinejad groupies. You expect that. Although we do know now 100 percent of them straight. No gay, 0 percent.
BECK: Was that incredible to hear that?
BURGUIERE: Not a one.
BECK: I just could not believe it. Did you -- I asked you this on the radio program earlier today. Did you see anybody from GLAAD? Did you see anybody from the National Organization of Women? Who was protesting?
BURGUIERE: Mainly, what I saw, there was, of course, one group that was protesting George Bush in a just completely unrelated thing. There was another group that was former Iranian nationals that were living here now and wanting their country back, essentially. And then there was, you know...
BECK: Why? I learned from Ahmadinejad they`re all free. It`s a free nation.
BURGUIERE: Yeah, you know what? I don`t know. Listening to him, it sounded like a commercial. It was like a Jamaica tourism ad.

BECK: I was thinking I would go.
(CROSSTALK)
BURGUIERE: And there was a large kind of contingency of pro-Israeli protesters, as well. And then students, who were generally, surprisingly enough, not split. It was very anti-Ahmadinejad, which was, even in New York, impressive.
BECK: Good, all right. "Even in New York." All right, tomorrow, you`re at the U.N. for the radio show and for TV. And then Wednesday, I`m sending you for Frostees. I`m just saying.
BURGUIERE: Oh, I love that, because the dictator tour isn`t working out.
BECK: Yes. Don`t forget, if you want to know what`s on tomorrow`s program, you like a little more in-depth commentary on the news of the day, please sign up for my free daily newsletter at glennbeck.com.Tomorrow on the radio program, some stuff that you just cannot miss. You will understand the face of evil tomorrow. All right, from New York, good night, America. And you, too, Ahmadinejad, you little weasel. [#####] 

Update (September 29):  In the light of the lavish lunacies with which the President of Iran's four-and-a-half day visit to the United States was greeted over the course of this past week, I couldn't resist checking both the microfilm as well as the electronic database maintained by the New York Times for this gem that "SK" called to our attention earlier today: "Shah Praises U.S. for Peace Policy; Iran's Ruler Calls on West to Bolster Independent Nations -- Gets Degree at Columbia," No Author Listed, New York Times, February 5, 1955 (Sect. 1, p. 2).  

What a beauty it is. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note, though, that roughly two-thirds of the text of the original article is missing from the copy found here.  (In case it's important to anybody, you can purchase a copy via the New York Times's electronic archives by clicking-on the hyperlink provided above.)  

In the missing paragraphs, the report continued: 
  "Only nations who are steadfast and resolved in their beliefs for freedom and democracy, and only nations who are prepared to make sacrifices will be able to make the grade," he said.   
  Calling upon the Western powers to help remove the sources of weakness and confusion among peace and freedom loving nations, the Shah said:
  "We must be strong enough spiritually, socially, economically and militarily to dispense with apathy, parochialism and economic and political instability.
  "We must be strong enough internally and externally so that the temptation of subversion from within, supported from without, can be obliterated.
    "I am convinced that the economic help given by the Western world to peace-loving nations will be dedicated to the defense of world peace.  No better investment could be made."
     Discusses Problems of Iran
  Turning to his own country's problems, the Shah observed that Iran's economic and political stability would fashion her internal development and that "the volume of assistance given to her by the Western powers will determine the tempo and pace of this economic development."
  He noted that the plan to distribute land from royal estates in Iran to needy farmers and peasants already had resulted in the distribution of 175,00 acres to 7,000 farmers.
  He added that "in a matter of years, when this scheme has reached its climax , 4,000,000 acres of cultivated land will have been distributed to 250,000 farmers."
  The Shah said the dominant theme of Iran's policy was "the wholehearted belief of our people in the purpose and principles of the United Nations and our unwavering resolve for the safeguard of our independence and sovereignty."
  The Shah was accompanied by his wife, Queen Soraya, during the degree-awarding ceremony in the rotunda of Columbia's Low memorial Library.  His address constituted the university's 1955 Gabriel Silver Lecture Dedicated to International Peace.  [#####]

 

Person

Weapons proliferation accelerated..

By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 20, 2007 22:57 PM

David, It seems now that Russia is being capitalist , it has becomes a new enemy.. Yahoo News [ Putin ] Threat that do not exists ::::

Reply this comment


Person

re: Rice support Putin

By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 14, 2007 20:19 PM

US policies has always been aggressives, Frederic; Each time the US or US corporation try a grab to get unlimited drinking water from Canada and get refused; you could read the titles in the news : WAR! Here the incident with Putin is that he does not want the US defense system deployed; hence the attack that he holds too much powers.. Also when Rice travle, you can be assured you don't need to squizze her neck to get bullshit; it just goes naturally. Also, what an impolite guest, really, for someone isn't pretty ( I didn't know they allowed camels in Russia) she could behave nicely. -

Reply this comment


Person

Condomlezza Rice and Russia

By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 13, 2007 13:13 PM

Again , US Secretery Rice is critisizing Russia democracy going on as to include that the Judicial system should be reformed.. In the light of the recent El- Masri lawsuit who was recently rejected by the US Supreme Court, should Condi decry or try to reform her own electoral system and take a serious look at the judicial circus affecting her famous US? She also complain Putin has too much power for a President,[ Yahoo News] wow at the very least Putin has not trying to legitimizes torture like Bush. It is not that I am trying to defend Russia' sins but Rice sound hypocritical; I think people should wear condoms to protect their ears from her bullshit

Reply this comment


Person

Condolezza Rice and Iran

By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 11, 2007 18:48 PM

Rice , one of the secretary of the US regime has nerves, she is accusing Iran of lying; I don't think this woman should be accorded any crediblity or relevance, I mean each time she opened her mouth about Iraq, she lied.. here on mainstream yahoo news, she[ rice] is still pictured with her lips moving and her mouth is open again.

Lying also could be a Bush syndrome; beware it could be contagious. 

Reply this comment


Person

Re a Quote from Christie " No empire "

By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 10, 2007 22:10 PM

Christie quote : America is the dominant oppressor. And there is a lot of reason to expect that China would be a marginally more humane ruler of the world than America. But this is an anarchist crowd, and we don't want to have to make a choice between Iran, or America, or China, or Russia, or whatever clown; we want none of them, no rulers, no empires. Very nice statement; hopefully not too many readers missed it. I wish americans readers would travel intellectually and focus on Stop the killing in Iraq and withdraw the troops before they rAnt Stop the killing in Darfur ( although the US could withdraw mercenaries..) Also, frankm said ( erroneously ) that Israel aid from the US is declining however this statement is false, recently Rice announced a 30 billion dollars military aid to Israel, that is an increase of 25% 30 Billion Military aid to Israel( NY times - By STEVEN ERLANGER Published: August 17, 2007), and in the article above a special emphasis is given against a alleged Iranian pseudo threat.. It is very likely that The US and Israel are planning the destruction of Iran.

Reply this comment


Person

YAY, I got this:

By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 10, 2007 18:05 PM

"I will admit that the HRC seems to, if it ends up picking out a nation to criticize, be focusing on Israel."

All right !!!!

Reply this comment


Person

Criticism OK

By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 10, 2007 11:25 AM

I'm the "anony" guy, I have registered.

Jonas, no I do not say that "criticism of government actions equates with hatred toward the surrounding society and culture." I agree this is absurd. It is only when there is obsessive, one-sided criticism, demonization, delegitimization, when you must question the motivations of the government criticism.

The best example of this is really the UN Human Rights Council. Whatever Frederic's attempts to gloss over the actions of this committee, the fact remains that Israel is really the ONLY country to have been fully condemned. In 15 months of operation, Israel has been condemned 14 times.  Really the only country to be condemned.  Even if we add actions against Sudan and Myanmar, Israel has been subjected to 75% of all actions, while 189 other countries are 100% off the hook.  These condemnation use strong language. In the case of Sudan, they council has only expressed "deep concern" NO CONDEMNATION. Myanmar was recently taken up. The council also voted to place Israel as a permanent agenda item. ONLY Israel. None of the other 191 countries. Investigations of Cuba and Belarus were halted.

Even Yvonne Terlingen, director of Amnesty International's offices at the UN, criticized the activity of the supposedly 'reformed' UN Human Rights Council. She specifically criticized the near exclusive focus of the council on Israel, and accused of applying a "double standard." So this is not some right winger saying this. You can read her statements here"

http://www.zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2007/10/un-human-rights-council-is-too-anti.html

Here is an article in the economist (A UK magazine not known for its love of Israel) about this also:

http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8966293

You would have to be incredibly intelectually dishonest, as Frederic has been on this point, to state that the UN HRC is NOT biased against Israel, effectively demonizing the country and singling it out for harsh criticism.

Now the hard part? Why is this so? Why is Israel being singled out when we can all name atrocities much worse than what Israel has and is being accused of (even if all true). Why? This is the UN, they can't hide behind some lame excuse that they are the biggest US donor state or that we can't "do anything" about China so we pick on Israel.

The uncomfortable truth is the reason is that Israel is the "Jewish" state. Sorry, but it's true. Does this mean that everyone who criticizes Israel is doing so because it is Jewish? Of course not. But at some point, criticism crosses the line. I actually believe that even some of the intense criticism that I call demonization/delegitimization from the left is not really anti-semitism at all. I think it is just part of the "basic tenets" of the left that Israel is pretty much in the wrong in ALL aspects, from its very existence to pretty much every action it takes, and I honestly believe that not much thought is given to the Jewish aspect. The origins of this thought though I do believe stem from anti-semitism. And the problem of this demonization, even coming from people whom I believe are not anti-semitic at all (probably all the people on this board in fact i.e. NOT anti-semitic at all), is that it does sway people and it does fuel the fire for those that truly are anti-semitic.  At some point the lies become accepted as the truth.

Let's be clear. I have many problems with Israel and believe they have made many grave mistakes, and have been responsible for the death of innocent people. I can give you a long list.  (I can also give you a long list of probably any country in the world).  But all of this must be placed in the context of the situation, intent is important, and yes, it must be viewed in comparison to what any country, Western or not, would do and has done in similar situations. My criticism, and I bet yours too, has a goal of IMPROVING Israel; Demonization and delegitimizing criticism does not seek to improve Israel, but seeks its end....The UN HRC as the best example.

Oh, last thing on Kahane. Every country has a racist fringe that will actually get some good results in the polls. Just yesterday in the NY Times there was an article that a leading candidate in Switzerland is using blatantly racist propaganda to gain support, which he is getting. The question is how the elected government responds to this. From Le Pen to Pat Buchanan to Kahane, this proves nothing.

Reply this comment


Person

Frederic, I don't think I

By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 09, 2007 18:04 PM

Frederic,

I don't think I would have been willing to put up with it and run through it all like you did. But I'd add that The Nation, widely considered a "flagship" Left publication, devoted an issue some time ago to repression by the Egyptian government. As for the crimes of Beijing, I'm behind a boycott of the 2008 Olympic games. This "anony" guy seems to have been taken in by the idea that criticism of government actions equates with hatred toward the surrounding society and culture. It's absurd.

To take a personal example, I've signed up for the Taglit-birthright program (this December/January). Very excited. Does this make me an apologist for Israeli crimes? Of course not. Nor should it. If I had, say, Egyptian Arab heritage on my mother's side (my mother is Jewish, not of Israeli descent, but for sake of argument...), there'd be no contradiction in decrying the actions of Cairo and also sharing an affinity for the Egyptian people. Oh, and didn't the Israeli High Court practically declare Meir Kahane a Nazi? If you have the time to listen to a really wild debate (Kahane vs. Alan Dershowitz ca. late 80s, http://kahane.hostultra.com/RavKahane01m.mp3) -- the only viable link to the audiofile comes from what appears to be some ultra-right webpage, so I guess I see now what you were saying earlier re IHR.

Reply this comment


Z

Actually, a great try and here is an even better one !!!

By Anonymous, Anonymous at Oct 08, 2007 16:10 PM

Well, this is just too much fun to ignore, you sucked me in !! (I'll register soon, no intent with being anony)

Kahane was a loner fringe not supported by any mainstream Jewish organizations or the Israeli government. Finding a lunatic and using this as an example of the majority is weak. Of course there is anti-arabism, what is your point? There is anti-everyone somewhere in the world. I'm talking about your demonization of Israel, using a standard that you reserve for Israel only, no other nation in the world receives your hatred like Israel does.

Egypt gets about $2B in aid, Israel I think about $3B, so where is the criticism of the opression and anti-democractic actions in Egypt? If US aid is the reason, then your argument holds no water. Are you also saying that if US aid to Israel is ended (it has been declining), you will stop your focus on Israel and move onto Egypt (or the next highest aid recipient)? I doubt it highly. Another red herring reason. The US does billions (if not a trillion) $ of trade with China, however, no one ever talks about China in the same demonic terms as they reserve for Israel.  I would say this $ trade is more economically important than the relatively paltry $3B that Israel gets.

Sure, the left says things about China, Sudan, Russia. etc. but not nearly with the same hatred as Israel. I want to hear terms like Genocide, crimes against humanity, illegitimate state, war crimes etc.  I want to hear you call Putin, Jintao war criminals (with the same zeal you'll go after Ariel Sharon).  After all, in all cases, the crimes are much worse by any measure. China is said to have killed 800,000 Tibetans. Russia is said to have killed 50,000-100,000 Chechens. Sudan is responsible for what, 200,000 deaths? Refugees and destruction in addition.  Throw in the USA, fine, for all its wars.  Even if all you say about Israel is 100% true, this is all worse.  By any measure. At best you might find evidence for 8,000 Palestinian deaths, if you assume they are all Israel's fault.  Again, even if what you say against Israel is 100% true, then I am not justifying any wrongs, but simply pointing out that the LANGUAGE and intent reserved for Israel, the deligitimazation of Israel, the vitriol, the energy and singular focus is never even approached when describing Russia, China, Sudan.   So again, since this part is hard for you to understand, it is not the criticism of Israel that is the problem, it is the double standard.

The UN HRC has obsessively focused on Israel. Period. No reasonable person can dispute this. From the EU to Ban Ki Moon, everyone knows this and there are numerous quotes about this. If you want to sound legitimate AT LEAST admit this and say it is wrong (you can say this without letting Israel off the hook, no?). But admitting this would mean that you admit that there is a double standard against Israel in the UN, that can only be explained by... you decide. Whether you like Anne Bayefsky or not, name one fact in her article that is wrong. She does not defend Israel at all, she attacks the UN HRC. Read it again. You attack Israel and defend the UN HRC.

Your point about arabs being semites so anti-semitism means anti-arab makes me laugh (or cry) whenever I hear this. Yes yes, semites technically means arabs as well. But this is not what the phrase means. Anti-Semitism refers to hostility towards Jews. This argument of yours is useless.  Say anti-Jewish if you prefer.

The argument that you can't "do anything" about other countries so you pick on Israel is also a bad excuse. How about not buying ANYTHING from China? Yes you can do so. When all the NGOs had their anti-Semitic festival in Durban in 2001, was this the reason? What can you "do" about Israel anyway? Tell me please, since this is a key reason right?  Blog, go to rallies, discuss with friends, etc. So let's see some of this energy focused on the much worse crimes against humanity from China, Russia and Sudan.

So it is not that all criticism against Israel is wrong. Of course not. But again, the singular focus, the double standard, the demonization, with the best example being the UN HRC can only be explained by one thing. I have MANY criticisms against Israel, but in a forum like this, the smallest actions are compared to genocide. By the way, if you claim Israel's actions are genocide, than you must admit they are quite bad at it. Less than 10,000 dead Palestinians in DECADES (maybe 4500-5000 in the last 7 years).  (And more Palestinians have been killed by fellow Palestinians, including many kids, women, than by Israel in the last 2 years -- IS THIS GENOCIDE?).  With all those F-16's, army, they must be bad shots.   If Israel is truly targetting Palestinians civilians for mass extermination (Genocide, no?) then what is going on here?  The Sudanese are much better than the Israelis. Only the worst Israel hater would honestly say that Israel has and is systematically murdering as many Palestinians as possible with the goal of their ultimate extermination. Another example of your irrational demonization and burning hatred. 

Reply this comment


Z

Jonas, Not worth bothering anymore

By Anonymous, Anonymous at Oct 08, 2007 10:40 AM

The vile hatred for Israel is astounding (and the US next). The distortions and one-sided proclamations are so fantastic, that at some point a discussion is not worth it. You will never change Frederic's opinions (and frankly most people on these fascinating blogs, but Frederic is on another level).  You should focus your energies on people who want to actually hear opinions and do not resort to petty demonization. You can't call people anti-semites anymore. But when there is (a) such an obsessive focus on every action Israel takes, (b) spinning each and every action to the level of crimes against humanity, while (c) at the same time ignoring, or certainly not so aggressively focusing on, actions by so many other countries that are much worse (Russia re Chechny, China re Tiber, Sudan re Darfur, Serbia re Muslims, many many more examples)....you have to wonder why. The demonization of Israel, while giving all other nations in the world a free pass is what the UN Human Rights commission does and is what Frederic does (OK, the US gets added to). So I won't call it anti-semitism, but I will call it aggressive, vile hatred and demonization of Israel and all that it represents, using a standard of behavior that is applied to no other nation or entity in the world. See these links below for more info on this type of behavior (sorry, I can't do the fancy links, cut and paste URLs). I expect some hate filled ranting from Frederic. Jonas, best to ignore.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzBlNTU5MTgzYmQ2NGQ2Njc4ZmMxMDVmZDU3ZWM5MGQ=

and

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070915/COMMENTARY/109150003/1012&template=nextpage

and

http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1313923&ct=3698367

Reply this comment


Person

Fair enough. And the

By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 07, 2007 02:59 AM

Fair enough. And the Iranian democrats are underestimated, very true. It is sheer hypocrisy on the part of the US government for its pronouncements of "support" for Iranian dissidents while doing everything to enhance the prestige and power of the worst arch-reactionary forces in Iran.

In a similar way, if I may digress, we in the US often hear about our... umm... leaders' wonderful "support" for the Israeli people. Nonsense. Why then enable the worst elements of the Israeli government to doom any hope of peace and continue the legitimation of the oppression of Palestinians. Oh, but then we (and I'm Jewish, so these appeals are meant to bear on me specifically) hear, Well Israel has security needs. Then why imperil its security by enhancing its government's hyper-militaristic policies? Ha'aretz recently reported some fantastic allegations -- a "report" -- that Cheney had "mulled" egging Iran to strike Israel so as to provide the right casus belli to launch airstrikes against Iran. So much for our "pro-Israel" leaders.

Re Iran, what we do is indeed relevant. But let's not forget that the idea of American exceptional moral superiority cannot sensibly be countered with the opposite dichotomy: that the US is the evil actor in the world, and even unsavory states like Iran are by comparison somehow preferable. Right? Am I missing something? Are my blinders showing? I mean hey, it's not a crime to disagree.

Reply this comment


Person

My quarrel isn't with Wise.

By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 07, 2007 02:44 AM

My quarrel isn't with Wise. The only thing I said was that the first graf cited the IHR, which is only respected by people with an axe to grind against Jews. I'm sorry, but the Left as I imagine it is fundamentally anti-racist right? Why does antisemitism get a pass? You are not antisemitic; but you have no problem, apparently, with citing a flagrantly antisemitic source! Imagine someone discussing race relations or something along that track and referring to the likes of American Renaissance and the CCC... no question in that case. If you are going to generalize quite far away from my actual comment, allow me to do so as well: read Michael Lerner, because there is something to it about the antisemitism of the Left, in this case the toleration of it.

Reply this comment


Person

Frederic, I feel

By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 07, 2007 01:06 AM

Frederic,

I feel embarrassed for you; you linked the info for the first paragraph to the Institute for Historical Review. I really hope you're not aware that that is practically the premier Holocaust-denial website; it's not out and out neo-Nazi because it tries to make the attempt to cloak their agenda with a patina of "scholarship", so it's not as bad as "Jew Watch".

I say I hope you're not aware of this because it would unsettle me deeply to think you linked to a group like IHR and knew what it is. There have to be far more reputable, credible and scholarly sources on the Sabra-Shantila massacres (carried out by the Lebanese Christian phalangist militia if I'm not mistaken) out there, right?

Reply this comment


Person

You don't have to be an

By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 07, 2007 00:57 AM

You don't have to be an "SGTR" to point out the flaws in arguments like yours. It's awfully depressing that any disagreement is considered tantamount to declaration of war. Not so much in this case but I've seen it before.

I meant that the US is an open society relative to Iran in terms of political freedom, free speech, freedom of press etc. That's not in dispute. I've read Failed States; it never contests that the US is an open society, in fact much more so than Iranian society. (Seriously, an interracial couple couldn't get a seat in New York?) I'm not engaging in Iran-bashing to point out that their government is in actuality far more repressive than that of the US. This discussion is poorly served by America-bashing; it's just fodder for SGTR-like reactionaries and these anonymous people. Unlike them I can actually... um, spell.

And please do tell about these "comments about the Holocaust from... the founders of Zionism that are little better" than Ahmadinejad's denial of the Nazi Holocaust. [By the time this got posted I saw that those very comments were posted. Never mind then; it's still very different from flat-out denial obviously.] Oh and by the way I'm American, yes, proudly. Is it so terrible that I simultaneously loathe what my government is doing and love my country?

Reply this comment


Person

Zionism

By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 04, 2007 07:20 AM

True. It wasn't Israel that directly murdered the people in Sabra and Shatila, but they are obviously the people to blaim. An Israeli commission/enquiry into the matter found Sharon to be indirectly responsible. It wasn't Israelis that did the killing. But they let the Christians loose in the camps. The LRA (I think that is the right acronym) later became Israel's client army in the South (if they weren't already in 1982), and they had a close relationship. Another not well-known fact is that Syria invaded Lebanon to protect the Christian population there, with the approval of the United States (important to keep in mind in view of the criticism of the Syrian occupation before they pulled out). Syria was afraid they would risk a direct confrontation with Israel if the Christians got killed (and they were in deep shit then). As we know Israel already at that time had nuclear weapons (from 1967 IIRC - when did they wage war?? Not unimportant IMO) and were the regional superpower. In addition to that, the Israeli invasion threw out the PLO, who was the refugees' only protectors. With the PLO gone, Israelis and their client army was let loose on the palestinian refugees, culminating in the slaugthers in Sabra and Shatila. The number of killed men, women and children in Sabra and Shatila isn't 20,000, but between 700 and 3,500 (according to Wikipedia at least). Also keep in mind the context of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. This was a time when Arafat had expressed more moderate positions, and wanted direct negotiations with Israel (he wanted this from 1979, I recently learned). But Israel was not interested in a peace process, so instead of negotiating with the Palestinians (whose representatives were the PLO), they attacked them. This is a good example of what Israel really wants. For 25+ years the Palestinians have wanted direct negotiations and a peace deal, but Israel have rejected it for the same amount of time. It's a great tragedy, and it's an outrage this fact is not known through our "free" media outlets. True, the founders of Zionism had died before the holocaust, so they could hardly say something about it. But I'm interested to know what Zionists had to say about it, Frederic. Particularly American Zionists had little interest in the holocaust and the crimes by the Nazis, or even immigration to Palestine, so I'd be interested to see what they said about these matters at the time. Pangaea Oslo, Norway

Reply this comment


Z

Frederic, wow !!

By Anonymous, Anonymous at Oct 03, 2007 23:19 PM

First, facts are all wrong, Lebanese Christians killed Palestinians in Sabra & Shatila, not Israelis. You can say that Israel allowed it to happen, but surely the Lebanese Christians would be the first on your list to criticize here since they actually did the killing.

Second, the founders of Zionism, most notably Theodore Herzl, pretty much all died by the time the Holocaust started, so it would be impossible for them to make horrible comments about the Holocaust.  Unless they had a time machine.

You rabid hatred for Israel and the US, combined with your love and sympathy for Iran leads me to one question: Why not move to Iran?

Reply this comment


Person

jonas and the joneses..

By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 02, 2007 22:37 PM

The only reasons why I wouldn't care at this point of time Iran would acquire nukes [ a country that is threatened by war ] is to act as a deterrent. I am opposed to have a second Iraq. I don't like nukes. during the Cold war the US game plan was to make Soviet nukes explodes over Canada before it reach the US [sick fucks]. I do believe Iran need nuclear power to provide electricity. I do not believe Iran is looking for the bomb, it has no uses for it- As far as chemical weapons is concerned, even Komeinei [ equivalent of a pope] forbid its uses against Iraqis during the proxy Iraq- Iran war and this even when chemical weapons were used against Iran. Jonas , if you voted or supported the US regime that created that mess in Afghanistan and Iraq, [ i suppose you are american] you are an accomplice of war crimes.

Reply this comment


Person

Not in the two and a half

By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 02, 2007 20:19 PM

Not in the two and a half years that I've been a part of the Znet blog have I seen anything like the irrationality you've put on display for all of us, cyrano. Allow me to quote you at length: "I do hope
that Iran acquires some long range nukes with as many warhead as it could." For what reason? And who are you referring to when you speak of "my people"? I'm going to ignore the childish comments in the middle of your post.

And can you decipher "I agree with with the people you help murdering even if they are muslim taking refuge under Islam evne if this culture is opposite to my values because they are arabs whom don't count in your ill philosophy and I sympathizes with their resistance to your fascism" for me, please?

Reply this comment


Person

Nuclear powers

By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 02, 2007 19:24 PM

First, I do think your sarcasm detector is broken. I think it's pointless to argue who is the most dangerous nuclear power in the world. All nuclear powers are extremely dangerous. All nuclear powers in the world should disarm. And we should prevent all other countries from getting nuclear weapons. That means I of course don't want Iran to get nuclear weapons, as I don't want any country in the world to have it, but it does not mean that I in any way support what is being done to Iran now, or a military attack on Iran. That would mean I also support a military attack on a host of other countries, which I do not. If we remove double standards, everybody that supports military action against Iran, should also support military action against, for example, Israel, Pakistan and France. The result would of course be World War III, which nobody with a functioning brain wants (I hope). Whether a country has 200 nuclear warheads (as Israel) or ~10,000 (as Russia and the US) is irrelevant. One nuclear warhead is enough to lay a city to waste. One could easily argue the United States is the most dangerous nuclear power in the world, as they are the only country that has used it - twice - and we know they have a "first strike"-policy. But that discussion is pointless. All nuclear powers are very dangerous, and we should acknowledge that. At the heart of the pressure against Iran are geopolitical and strategic goals. Just as with Iraq, the WMD case against Iran is filled with lies. IAEA have said, time and time again, that there are no proof Iran are aiming for a nuclear weapon. They have inspectors in the country overseeing everything that happens - something that is not the case in any other nuclear weapons state. I may also add that both the UK and the US have active nuclear R&D programmes, to develop even more deadly nuclear weapons, and what they call "strategic" nuclear weapons. To translate, that means a nuclear weapon they can use in war without laying cities to waste (not that they have a problem with that, apart from the bad press that would follow). The US used a lot of depleted uranium in both Gulf wars, for example, an other example of quasi-nuclear weapons. They don't have the mushroom cloud, but roughly the same effect (cancer, miscarriages etc etc). What I'm getting at is that all nuclear weapon states are very dangerous, and all should be disarmed. If the nuclear weapons states had followed the NPT, we would be a good way towards achieving this goal. Unfortunately they don't follow the NPT. Some have even pulled out altogether, or not signed it in the first place. Pangaea Oslo, Norway

Reply this comment


Person

Iran and the nukes

By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 02, 2007 19:10 PM

Jonas, there is only one leading country whom practice terrorism globally . its the US. it is so out touch with human rights, it legalized torture. Iran president seem bad, but compared to Bush he is an angel. Like in Iraq and Afhganistan, Iran only sin is to have oil underneath its feet. I do hope even there is no indicative that Iran has nukes and considering I do not like any countries to have such weapons, I do hope that Iran acquires some long range nukes with as many warhead as it could. And as such Jonah , considering the countless children that died in the ME for the recent year, considering the illegal war in Afghanistan and Iraq, the illegal occupation and destruction of these country, I consider you because of your support to be a little Hitler by ideology, an apologist of infanticides. a supporter of terror and by proxy vote, a psychopath and a murderer.. I agree with with the people you help murdering even if they are muslim taking refuge under Islam evne if this culture is opposite to my values because they are arabs whom don't count in your ill philosophy and I sympatizes with their resistance to your fascism. remember one thing Iranians didnt vote for their President because they wanted war. Your people did.

Reply this comment


Person

Jews?

By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 02, 2007 19:07 PM

Jews isn't the problem of the Middle East. There are many problems, and Jews are involved in many of them. But it's not their Jewishness that is the cause of the problems. The problem is the policies and actions of Israel. Just as overall it's the US policies in the Middle East that is at the core of the problem, not Americans. Pangaea Oslo, Norway

Reply this comment


Person

Are you serious? Are you the

By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 02, 2007 12:43 PM

Are you serious? Are you the same anonymous person who (hopefully jokingly) said, to wit, that the Jews are the problem in the Mideast?

Reply this comment


Person

Whoa this is some

By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 02, 2007 12:40 PM

Whoa this is some antisemitic garbage. I hope my sarcasm detector is woefully broken. As for the first comment in the thread, exactly how is Israel the "most dangerous" nuclear power? Numerically speaking, it's got a token 200 warheads versus our 5,000 (operational) bombs. Explain.

Reply this comment


Person

Couldn't disagree more.

By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 02, 2007 12:27 PM

Couldn't disagree more. Demonization is simply unnecessary because Ahmadinejad is so obviously morally bankrupt. He is quite Hitler-like, in fact openly. And the U.S. is anything but a "closed society." It is an open society by and large, isn't it? Also, Iran is a terror state, and has been for many years. It's unfortunate that Ahmadinejad is portrayed as its head of state, when in actuality he's more or less a ceremonial figurehead with limited executive authority, and no power over foreign affairs. He can babble and prattle all he wants, including his disgusting Holocaust-denial.

Reply this comment


Person

monkeys--

By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 01, 2007 20:15 PM

David, its very amazing Israel was allowed to obtain nuclear weapons and never condemned about it.. and to the opposite a country that does not want nukes is being accused of looking for it.. monkeys..anonymous, Iran is morally superior than the Occupation Army of Israel ; even the Ayatollahs ( read Komeini) are against such weapons..

Reply this comment


Person

Yes! Yes! Israel should

By Rbarnich, Bobo at Oct 01, 2007 16:47 PM

Yes! Yes! Israel should disarm. If only Israel had no weapons, especially nuclear weapons, then the middle east would finally be at peace. Never minding that all of the Arab countries and Iran are at war with Israel it is Israel that is the threat. Afterall Israel and Iran are moral equivlants.

Reply this comment


Person

Replly to "Of course Israel is the most"

By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 01, 2007 14:57 PM

Friends:

Unfortunately, so much of the great material that until the start of 2007 used to be available via the website of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has been sequestered behind the $$$$$ curtain.  So, until I locate an alternative link for the second of these:

"Israel Crosses the Threshold," National Security Archive, April 28, 2006
"Israel crosses the threshold," Avner Cohen and William Burr, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May/June, 2006

Nuclear Weapons: Israel, Federation of American Scientists 
Nuclear Weapons: Israel, GlobalSecurity.org

"'Israeli Nuclear Capabilities and Threat' I," ZNet, September 3, 2004

David Peterson
Chicago, USA 

Reply this comment


Person

Ignorance

By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 01, 2007 11:19 AM

"Ignorance is Strength" Pangaea Oslo, Norway

Reply this comment


Person

Israel and nuclear weapons

By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 01, 2007 11:16 AM

Looks like I forgot Israel. But that's what I came here today to mention. Both the US and Israel are saying they want to attack Iran because Iran may be developing nuclear weapons. Trustworthy? Of course not. I pointed out the obvious double standards above. I'd like to point out another thing though. About two weeks ago there was a vote on whether the Middle East should be free of nuclear weapons. As Israel is the only nuclear state in the region, this is in effect a vote on whether countries want Israel to have nuclear weapons or not, in addition, of course, to prevent others from getting them (read: Iran). The vote ended 53-2-47. That is 53 in favour, 2 against and 47 abstentions. Guess who voted against? That's right: the United States and Israel. What did Iran vote? That's right too. They voted for it. Some quotes from the international press: REUTERS
"A similar resolution urging all Middle East nations to adopt IAEA safeguards on nuclear work passed overwhelmingly at last year's IAEA general assembly, with only Israel and top ally the United States opposed, as they were again on Thursday. Egypt reintroduced the resolution this year seeking full consensus but attached two new clauses that prompted Israel to demand a vote and European, other Western and non-aligned developing nations to abstain. One clause urged all nations in the Middle East, pending creation of a nuclear weapons-free zone (NWFZ) there, not to make or test nuclear arms or let them be deployed on their soil. The other urged big nuclear arms powers not to foil such a step."
Jerusalem Post
"Evidence that Israel has nuclear arms is overwhelming, much of it based on details and pictures leaked in 1986 by Israeli nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu. His revelations have been added to by other leaks, research, and by statements made by Israeli leaders that stopped just short of confirming Israel's status as a weapons state. ... Explaining his call for a vote, chief Israeli delegate Gideon Frank suggested lack of willingness to remove resolution language his country objected to showed there was "no interest in consensus" by Egypt, which submitted the document and the other nations most in support - Arab countries and Iran."
Aaaaah. The resolution called for a nuclear free Middle East. Since they didn't want to listen to our objections and kill the resolution, we voted against it. Another point of interest to note, is that an article like this would never appear in the US press. But it does in Israel. The Jerusalem Post isn't exactly a liberal paper either, to put it mildly. In another article (on the frontpage) the paper claims that "Ahmadinejad's goals, then, are his control over Iran, Iran's control over the Persian Gulf area (especially Iraq), Israel's destruction, Iranian leadership of the Middle East, and even world domination, in roughly that order." ["Ahmadinejad's agenda"] So to sum up: If the United States and Israel really were worried about nuclear power in the Middle East, they would naturally vote in favour of the resolution. But they did not. That tells us they want other things than a nuclear free Middle East. If the world are concerned about Iran getting nuclear power, we should of course first disarm those that actually have nuclear warheads. That's what the NPT is supposed to be about. But ooooh: Israel and the United States aren't even signatories to the NPT (any more). This isn't a small issue. Nobody wants Iran to have nuclear arms. More important though, nobody (except the political leadership in various (Western) states) want anybody to have nuclear weapons. If we were serious about this, we would disarm all nuclear states. Pangaea Oslo, Norway

Reply this comment


Person

Of course Israel is the most

By Rbarnich, Bobo at Oct 01, 2007 10:29 AM

Of course Israel is the most dangerous nuclear power. Don't be silly. Those crafty Jews can't be trusted. After all, a country of 8 million surrounded by 260 million hostile neighbors that have the expressed policies of liquidation can't be trusted to NOT go picking a fight. Plus, you can't forget the years of Jewish material support for bombings and killings through out the world, from cultural centers in Argentina to discoteques in Germany. Those crafty Jews love trying to kill gentiles. It's even in their holy books! They're always attacking their neighbors simply because they're not Jewish, creating multiple fronts despite the poor military strategy and have NEVER attempted to make a peace offering. Those Jews are the root of the middle east's problems. We should spend more time focusing on them.

Reply this comment


Person

Did you forget. . .

By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 01, 2007 00:23 AM

Israel? The most dangerous nuclear power of them all?

Reply this comment


Person

Bolton

By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 30, 2007 19:32 PM

"I don't think the use of military force is an attractive option, but I would tell you I don't know what the alternative is.
Diplomacy you fucking RETARD! You know, the thing you have NEVER tried. When did we all move to Burma?? Pangaea Oslo, Norway

Reply this comment


Person

Bomb who?

By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 30, 2007 19:28 PM

I'll overlook the stupidity of the comment from Bolton, and try to address the issue of double standards. We don't know that Iran have a program to develop nuclear weapons. In fact, all the evidence points to the contrary. You know the facts as well as I do, so I won't repeat the details here about IAEA reports etc. We KNOW that many countries in fact DO HAVE nuclear weapons programmes. Does John Bolton suggest we bomb those too? Even if we, with crystal clear racism, overlook the Western nations' nuclear weapons programmes, there are still a few countries left... Should we bomb China? Should we bomb Pakistan? Should we bomb India? Should we bomb Russia? (unless we categorize it as Western) And, getting rid of the racism... Should we bomb France? Should we bomb the United Kingdom? AND... Should we bomb the United States? This use of double standards is what pisses me off. I could come up with an analogy. But to be honest it's quite pointless. Things can't get much clearer than they already are. *I'm not a US citizen, but it works just as well collectively for the 'West' Pangaea Oslo, Norway

Reply this comment


Person

Bolton quoted

By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 30, 2007 17:18 PM

4pm Bolton calls for bombing of Iran Ros Taylor Sunday September 30, 2007 Guardian Unlimited John Bolton John Bolton: 'I think we have to look at a limited strike against their nuclear facilities.' Photograph Win McNamee/Getty Images. John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the United Nations, told Tory delegates today that efforts by the UK and the EU to negotiate with Iran had failed and that he saw no alternative to a pre-emptive strike on suspected nuclear facilities in the country. Mr Bolton, who was addressing a fringe meeting organised by Lord (Michael) Ancram, said that the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was "pushing out" and "is not receiving adequate push-back" from the west. Article continues "I don't think the use of military force is an attractive option, but I would tell you I don't know what the alternative is. "Because life is about choices, I think we have to consider the use of military force. I think we have to look at a limited strike against their nuclear facilities." He added that any strike should be followed by an attempt to remove the "source of the problem", Mr Ahmadinejad. "If we were to strike Iran it should be accompanied by an effort at regime change ... The US once had the capability to engineer the clandestine overthrow of governments. I wish we could get it back." The fact that intelligence about Iran's nuclear activity was partial should not be used as an excuse not to act, Mr Bolton insisted. "Intelligence can be wrong in more than one direction." He asked how the British government would respond if terrorists exploded a nuclear device at home. "'It's only Manchester?' ... Responding after they're used is unacceptable." cyrano: It seem we only have to twist Bolton's neck to get bullshit coming from his mouth.. by all mean , The US sent a terrorist to represent their interest at the UN.. The war that the US want to start in Iran is also about the control of oil, It wants to weaken emerging economies such as China and Russia.. I am afraid the US will turn Iran into another parking lot such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam..

Reply this comment


Person

"Bolton Calls for Bombing of Iran"

By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 30, 2007 13:09 PM

Friends:

Two more beauties:

"Columbia University has standing ovation for President," Press Release, General Pervez Musharraf, President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, September 16, 2005
"Bolton Calls for Bombing of Iran," Ros Taylor, The Guardian, September 30, 2007 


David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Reply this comment


Person

Reply to Cyrano

By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 30, 2007 11:46 AM

Cyrano:

It is a profoundly troubling insanity.  An insanity that for centuries has been nurtured not only by the fable West's practice of doing unto others the kind of things the West would never accept others doing unto it.  But also by the West's getting away with it.  With so few exceptions that they pale in comparison to the rule.


David Peterson
Chicago, USA     

Reply this comment


Person

Ahmadinejad

By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 30, 2007 11:37 AM

Last thursday , when I went down town Toronto, I noticed a lot of screams from an organized demo ( a table of 5 people) against Ahmadinejad " Ahmadinejad must go Ahmadinejad must go.. I stopped and asked are you willing to send Iran back to the stone age because you feel Iran does not give enough rights to women? what about Kuwait, what about the Emirates arent they worst regimes? The woman that answered me was willing to bring war on Iran without considering the consequences for Iranian people. I pointed out that Taliban not being in power made it worst for Afghanistan women whom now get raped on daily basis- it did not change her views. Its insanity... the subversive information about Iran is a precursor of attacks against Iranian people.

Reply this comment


Person

Reply to SK

By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 30, 2007 11:02 AM

SK:

Thanks. --

"I hate all Iranians, US aide tells MPs," Simon Walters, Mail on Sunday (U.K.), September 30, 2007

I wouldn't worry about poor Debra Cagan, though.  In case there's any fallout over the publicizing of her remarks to the British MPs (and I doubt that there will be, as much worse than a simple "I hate all Iranians" airs over U.S. television daily),  Cagan can always switch to hating all (or at least most) Belarusans, Cubans, North Koreans, Zimbabwans, Syrians -- and, of course, Burmese.


David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Reply this comment


Person

The Daily Hate

By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 30, 2007 10:18 AM

Or should that be the Permanent Hate? 

Reply this comment


Person

"Iran: The Ticking Bomb," FOX News

By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 29, 2007 23:27 PM

 Friends:

This weekend, the FOX News Channel is airing a program titled "Iran: The Ticking Bomb" (September 29/30, 2007).  A blurb that accompanies FOX's PR for the program bills it as a "special investigation hosted by Dan Senor."  You will recall that Senor is a former spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad.

Programming such as this is so blatant that it must be viewed as an advertisement for a U.S. attack on Iran.  Nothing more.

Now.  I don't yet have a transcript of the Senor-hosted "Iran: The Ticking Bomb." But I do have a transcript of a PR appearance that Senor made on yet another of the FOX News Channel's other programs yesterday.  (For a copy, see below.)

This ia very harrowing agitprop, Friends.  Nothing less. 
"The Long Arm of Iran," Dan Senor, Wall Street Journal, September 29, 2007

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Fox News Network
September 28, 2007 Friday
SHOW: FOX HANNITY & CO 9:50 PM EST
War with Iran?
BYLINE: Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes, Dan Senor

HANNITY: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez have been quite chummy this week in Venezuela. Is this the new axis of evil in the world? And what sort of threat does this unholy alliance pose to the United States?Now this Saturday night right here on the FOX News Channel, we'll be airing a special called "Iran: The Ticking Bomb." It is a special investigation into the role that Iran plays in the attacks on our troops in Iraq and it includes exclusive information about American plans to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat. You don't want to miss it. This Saturday night at 9:00. Joining us now, the host of that special, FOX News contributor Dan Senor is with us.All right. Dan, I'm watching this world. I think we're literally back in 1939. This guy is telegraphing to the world his evil intention and it seems that there is a significant portion of the world that wants to ignore him.
DAN SENOR, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, I think that's right.
(CROSSTALK)
SENOR: Yes, I think you are, Sean. We are dealing with a man who denies the first Holocaust, the Holocaust in Europe, and advocates a second one. I mean, if you consider what the implications of what he is saying is. And if you listen to his speech at the U.N. General Assembly last week, he said that not only does Iran have the right to have nuclear capabilities, it's a fait accompli that they have nuclear capabilities, and they have the right to distribute that technology to anybody they want to in the world.
It's a pretty dangerous scenario. I mean, I just want to make one point. If you look back and if you look at the pattern of rhetoric that came out of Nazi Germany in the lead-up to the Second World War and the Holocaust, if historians look back and say, what -- you had this trail there for you, why didn't you deal with it? And we have a similar pattern today.
HANNITY: And that raises the question, because that pattern is what I think the world is ignoring here. You know, when you have General Petraeus tell the American people that he is fighting and Iran is fighting a proxy war against the United States, and your investigation this Saturday night will get into this, they're providing the weaponry killing American soldiers, how long can they get away with that before there is not indignation among the American people and a demand that you can no longer kill American sons and daughters?
SENOR: Well, that's one of the things we take a close look at in this special is, is the American military, is our government really cognizant of the extent to -- our military is, the question is, is our government cognizant of which Iran is penetrating Iraq.
HANNITY: But they have to be, Dan, I mean, don't they?
SENOR: Look, I agree. I mean, I think they are. I think there is such a sense right now. There is such a sense of fatigue about whether or not the American public, whether or not the American system can tolerate a second military engagement somewhere in the region. So we're trying to sort of do everything else we can do to put pressure on Iran and hope it changes its behavior.The reality is though, Sean, is we're not doing enough. There is more we could be doing. It's one of the things we look at in tomorrow's show. There is more we could be doing to put the economic squeeze and certainly diplomatic squeeze on Iran to make it the pariah, to borrow your phrase, that it should be. And that could hopefully, potentially get it to change course...
(CROSSTALK)
COLMES: You were part of the Bush administration that misled us into war with Iraq, demonized Saddam Hussein, made him into someone who had intentions against the United States that it turns out we could never prove that he had. And now you're ramping up the same kind of rhetoric and ginning up the same kind of emotion against Iran.Isn't it true that Ahmadinejad isn't even the commander-in-chief? He doesn't have the kind of power the clerics have. He doesn't have the kind of power you're claiming he has. He doesn't make the political decisions in Iran. And you're imbuing him with more power than he actually has in his own country.
SENOR: OK. Well, Sean, let me address those things point -- I'm sorry, Alan. Of course. Let me address those point-by-point. One, you're right, we don't know if Ahmadinejad is really in charge in Iran. We don't. It may be Khamenei, the supreme leader. But if you look at his rhetoric, and one of the things we look at in the documentary is we look at allegations from the Argentinean government about Khamenei's role in terrorist attacks in Latin America 15 years ago.So even if Ahmadinejad isn't really in charge, Khamenei, the other guy who could be in charge, the supreme leader, is potentially equally as dangerous.
COLMES: As a matter of fact, what has been reported is that Khamenei and the clerics in Iraq have actually put the kibosh on many of the things Ahmadinejad has wanted to do. Don't you think we should have some proper intelligence before we start ramping up emotions, talking about a war with Iran, talking about bombing another country, talking about going into another country militarily? Knowing exactly what is going on before we.
SENOR: Alan, let me respond to that. Let's take Ahmadinejad at his own word. This is actually very different from Iraq. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein was articulating something different from what the U.N. inspectors was. He was saying he didn't have weapons of mass destruction. Here Ahmadinejad has said he has passed the crucial threshold to enrich uranium, because he has got 3,000 centrifuges.
HANNITY: All right. Dan, thank you. We'll be looking forward to it. And that's all coming up this Saturday night, 9:00 right here on the FOX News Channel…. [#####] 

Reply this comment


Person

Reply to SK

By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 29, 2007 18:49 PM

SK:

Have never read Kristin Ross's book, though it sounds insightful and important.  (Ross's essay we've discussed before.)

However, I agree with the points you've made about the harnessing and channeling -- Christ: How about the alimentary canalizing? -- of potentially dissident movements away from theaters where their organized actions might pose challenges to real power, into theaters where their actions do little more than bop the baloney, and provide the emotional tourists a cheap thrill.

Thus, for example:

"The Fourth Global Day for Darfur," Amnesty International, September 16, 2007 
"
Iraq: Refugee Crisis Unfolds amid Global Apathy," Amnesty International, September 24, 2007

Have you ever wondered how many of the grunts who fight in the trenches for the Human Rights Brigades even recognize that the explanation for the second of these two items is to be found in the first of them -- and that the Human Rights Brigades bear no small share of the responsibility for it, either?

For another one already upon us:

"Statement on Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Burma," White House Office of the Press Secretary, May 17, 2007

As the Fearless Leader told the UN General Assembly the other day, the "mission of the United Nations requires liberating people from tyranny and violence," and, before he was finished, he managed to couple Belarus, Cuba, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Syria, Iran, and Burma under the rubric of "brutal regimes [that] deny their people the fundamental rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration [of Human Rights]" -- i.e., foreign regmes that are on the Washington regime's short-list of states whose people require "liberation."  ("President Bush Addresses The United Nations General Assembly," White House Office of the Press Secretary, September 25, 2007.) 

Meanwhile, "The Whispers of War" grow ever-louder (Dan Ephron and Mark Hosenball, Newsweek, October 1, 2007).


David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Reply this comment


Person

I should have spellled it "Ahmy"

By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 29, 2007 12:01 PM

Because Americans often jeer at foreigners' funny names and refuse to even try to say "Ahmadinejad," in my hearing I've heard many references to "Ahmy" and I guess I thought they picked it up from mainstream media somewhere, maybe CNN or talk radio. As to my left Jewish friends, maybe the veneer is not quite paper thin, but it's thin. It's not uncommon for them to be defiantly anti-Republican, anti-war, anti-Bush/Cheney, anti spineless Democrats, anti all the things you and I are anti about, but to be cagey about Israel/Palestine--that's different. I suspect the Ahmadinejad Columbia incident--a trap set for him that he walked right into, as his known personality clearly indicated he would--was designed to get left-leaning Jews (who represent after all a formidable component of the US left tradition) wrought up and more in favor of invading Iran. This is a particularly important strategy at the present moment, as the movement against Israeli apartheid seems to be growing, and must be nipped.

Reply this comment


Person

Reply to Reply

By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 29, 2007 10:32 AM

Hehe, no special skills needed other than cut & paste of a link I came across at another blog. I thought the second link was more interesting in reflecting on how successor generations to the student movement of the '60s were harnessed and channeled into causes that are at worst benign (e.g. 'Save Darfur') or at best quite handy ('Liberate Afghan women') as far as plans of the Power Elite--as C. Wright Mills described them--are concerned. At any rate, they're a welcome diversion of energies of the young into non-threatening causes that strike far from home.

Kristin Ross covers this co-optation in her book, May '68 and Its Afterlives. Something that contains many of the points in above book is here.

Reply this comment


Person

Repl to SK

By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 29, 2007 10:03 AM

 SK:

You've outdone even yourself with this gem: 

"Columbia [University] Honors Shah," New York Times

You really ought to tell me more about yourself.


David Peterson
Chicago, USA 

Reply this comment


Person

Curious how little protest

By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 29, 2007 09:43 AM

Curious how little protest there was from establishment types when this dictator visited Columbia University. The thuggish methods of this buffoon were so well known that his trips to major European cities usually resulted in enormous demonstrations and even led to a protestor's death.






Reply this comment


Person

Reply to Terence

By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 29, 2007 09:13 AM

Terence:

The "'Ami' campaign"?  The Shlomo Ben-Ami campaign?  The Australian Media Institute campaign? 

I must have missed something. -- Please explain.

Thanks.

About your "left Jewish friends": Maybe they're not so left after all?  Or the veneer is paper thin?

By the way, speaking of jingoism, and collective projection:

"Will Ahmadinejad's obsession with the 12th Imam lead to war?" Con Coughlin, Daily Telegraph, September 28, 2007
"The Whispers of War," Dan Ephron and Mark Hosenball, Newsweek, October 1, 2007


David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Reply this comment


Person

it's working

By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 29, 2007 00:41 AM

The "Ami" campaign (as it has been instantly dubbed in typical jingoistic fashion) is working well among my left Jewish friends. People I have always been able to count on to understand the war waged by the rich against the poor and the empire's insatiable lust for control of strategic resources are going for this distraction hook, line, and sinker. It appears to be the trump card in the don't-be-surprised-when-we- bomb-Iran campaign. It's working big time.

Reply this comment

Loading_border