# I believe the Iranian leadership!



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gentlemen,

Lets take Iran seriously:

*Aznar: Khamenei said in 2001 Iran aimed to 'set Israel alight'

By Yossi Verter, Haaretz Correspondent *

_Former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar said Tuesday that Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told him five years ago that "setting Israel on fire" was the first order of business on the Iranian agenda.

Aznar, in Israel as the guest of the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, related the story to Major General (Res.) Professor Yitzhak Ben-Israel, who later confirmed to Haaretz that the remarks had been made.

Aznar's aides refused to give Haaretz the exact quote, but mentioned an article Aznar has written in the past on his meeting with Khamenei.

"He received me politely," Aznar wrote, "and at the beginning of the meeting he explained to me why Iran must declare war on Israel and the United States until they are completely destroyed. I made only one request of him: that he tell me the time of the planned attack."

Professor Ben-Israel, the former head of the Israel Defense Force's Weapon Systems Development Authority, is today No. 31 on Kadima's list of Knesset candidates.

Aznar was to deliver a lecture at the Interdisciplinary Center on Wednesday evening on "Dealing with the challenged of fundamental Islam and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."

Khamenei still holds the post of Iranian spiritual leader, and considered to be the powerful man in the country.

_I am sure some of you may dismiss this account bc it comes from Israeli paper or you view Aznar as too pro-American but I think we should believe the Iranian leadership is sincere.

Karl


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

Oh, I believe them. Forunately, they are given to exageration at times, so hopefully it won't get quite that far. Regardless, they scare the hell out of me. 

CT


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Astonishingly, many folks are willing to take the statements of foreign politicians literally and at face value, and reserve their healthy skepticism for their own politicians.

Why would someone believe an Iranian leader, but totally reject as lies the statements of a US or Canadian or British politician?

DocD


----------



## Gong Tao Jai (Jul 7, 2005)

I remember reading an article by some neocon (I wish I could remember who)in the Atlantic Monthly during the runup to the Iraq war. It laid out an extrememely optimistic scenario where Iraq would turn into a vibrant democracy friendly to the US. But the part that had me looking to see if it was supposed to be satire was the author's belief that the Iranians, who only respond to the threat of force, would also turn pro-American when they saw us flexing our muscles next door. It said that the Iranians weren't really very anti-Israel, and the end result would be an Iran-Iraq-Israel axis promoting all that was good, to counterbalance the bad actors in the region. 
It's interesting that I, with no particular knowledge of the middle east or foreign policy, was able to correctly predict the results of invading Iraq, while this baboon, a professional who writes for national magazines, was spinning absurd fantasies.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

DocD,

Not sure what your point is - that we should be skeptical of the Iranian leadership's claims? Ok fine but then lets not extend them any benefit of the doubt when they claim they are not pursuing nuclear weapons.

Karl


----------



## Mr. Knightly (Sep 1, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Gong Tao Jai_
> 
> I remember reading an article by some neocon (I wish I could remember who)in the Atlantic Monthly during the runup to the Iraq war. It laid out an extrememely optimistic scenario where Iraq would turn into a vibrant democracy friendly to the US. But the part that had me looking to see if it was supposed to be satire was the author's belief that the Iranians, who only respond to the threat of force, would also turn pro-American when they saw us flexing our muscles next door. It said that the Iranians weren't really very anti-Israel, and the end result would be an Iran-Iraq-Israel axis promoting all that was good, to counterbalance the bad actors in the region.
> It's interesting that I, with no particular knowledge of the middle east or foreign policy, was able to correctly predict the results of invading Iraq, while this baboon, a professional who writes for national magazines, was spinning absurd fantasies.


Obviously you're describing a writer who is a little off the deep end. However, to be fair, many professionals predicted a different result because they assumed a more intelligent post-war plan would be in place. I think it's far from obvious that the current situation was the _necessary_ result of the invasion.

Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy,
But not express'd in fancy; rich, not gaudy;
For the apparel oft proclaims the man.


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working (Jun 23, 2005)

When dictators and terrorist states threaten violence, it is best to take them at their word. There is no value to be found in downplaying or serving as their apologist. With Libya and Iraq removed, Iran seeks to become the defender of the faith for the Islamists, and accrue power as such. Removing Israel is the first order of business for these types. Would they be so brash as to launch a nuclear attack, who knows. But they most certainly would, and do, seek whatever means there exists to destabilize the region. Further, nations like Iran fully expect the West to cower and ultimately give in.

Whatever one's views may be about GWB and his handling of Iraq, the simple truth remains, a world without Iran, Syria, and North Korea would most certainly be a better place. Why can't global leaders do something before its too late.


----------



## Gong Tao Jai (Jul 7, 2005)

Mr Knightly, I'm not sure I really disagree with any of what you said-- certainly, the bizarre fantasies of the article I read were the extreme edge of neocon war-architect thinking. But I think everyone should have recognized that invading an Arab country posed a very high risk of prolonged insurgency, inflaming the region against the US, creating a failed state where terrorists could thrive, civil war, etc. Many of these factors were cited by George Bush Sr as reasons for not invading after driving Iraq out of Kuwait. 
I hope it is not too late for a good (or at least not awful) outcome, for the US and the Iraqis. 

I hope I haven't hijacked the thread. To get back to the original subject, I think the Iranian leadership is a bunch of freaking nuts, who I hope never get a nuclear weapon. Without one, I don't think they can be much more than a nuisance.


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working (Jun 23, 2005)

The Iranians actions go beyond nuisance status. They actively fund numerous terrorist groups and serve as a center for Islamist power. The cartoon episode was largely fueled by Iranian responses. Without states like Iran, the Israeli Palestinian peace process would have a better chance of success.

Over the past years, I have really become disgusted when hearing the endless critiques of America by Europeans while France, Germany, and Russia actively trade with Iran. No one has to like GWB or our current policies, but spare me the constant line when we learn Iran has the bomb.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by I_Should_Be_Working_
> 
> (...) spare me the constant line when we learn Iran has the bomb.


There won't be any lines any more when Iran has the bomb, I'm afraid.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Yes, but how close are they? Is anyone here an IAEA scientist or inspector? Or some sort of intelligence expert? Or a 'mole' in the Iranian secret police, military, or gov't scientific community?

The point of my original post was to suggest that none of us civilians, including 99% of all commentators, know anything concrete about the status and/or progress of Iran's nuclear program. Remember how Saddam had all sorts of nasty weapons? Remember how they never found them?

Leaders on _all sides_ makes all sorts of crazy statements, and we should do well to consider them carefully before getting 'on side'.

Anyhoo,
DocD


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Doctor Damage_
> 
> Yes, but how close are they? Is anyone here an IAEA scientist or inspector? Or some sort of intelligence expert? Or a 'mole' in the Iranian secret police, military, or gov't scientific community?


It doesn't matter. Better you wipe out such a government before it's too late.



> quote:
> Leaders on _all sides_ makes all sorts of crazy statements, and we should do well to consider them carefully before getting 'on side'.


Sure. I certainly would compare the statements of Bush and the EU leaders to the ones of such respectable and civilized persons as Ahmadineshad and Khameini as well.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Albert_
> 
> It doesn't matter. Better you wipe out such a government before it's too late.


That's basically pre-meditated war. Does that mean the Western democracies are no better, or should hold themselves to no better standard, than the world's dictators and warmongers, past and present?



> quote:Sure. I certainly would compare the statements of Bush and the EU leaders to the ones of such respectable and civilized persons as Ahmadineshad and Khameini as well.


I get your point, but I personally don't consider Bush'n'Blair to be entirely civilized people, at least not compared to the high standard of humanity that both the US and the UK have proclaimed and tried to uphold for a long time.

DocD


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by I_Should_Be_Working_
> 
> With Libya and Iraq removed, Iran seeks to become the defender of the faith for the Islamists, and accrue power as such.


Iraq was "a defender of the faith for the Islamists"? Unless I am vastly mistaken, I thought every Islamist worth his salt regarded Saddam as an "infidel tyrant."

Put in the simplest terms, the U.S. was attacked by a conspiracy of Moslem religious fanatics, so Bush and his neocon buddies take out the most secular state in the Arab world. Never made much sense to me, but I'm no expert!


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working (Jun 23, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLibourel_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Perhaps I should have said "Muslim agitator to the west". Iraq played this role for many years, funding suicide bombers and providing other means of support. During the 80's and 90's, Iraq and Libya were the primary countries publicly challenging the western powers. It provides a good means of distracting their own public and gives popular credence amongst the Arab world. They are gone, and Iran has the stage to itself.

Moderates within Iran had better get hold of their country. Besides the violent rhetoric, the government's current populist economic policies will ruin future opportunities for internal development.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by I_Should_Be_Working_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You seem to forget that during the 1980s the United States actively supported Iraq as a check on Iran, which was perceived as a greater threat.


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working (Jun 23, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, I don't forget. One thing that grew out of the past few years, though, has been a tendency to look beyond "my dictator is better than yours." This was my great hope following 9/11, that we would no longer tolerate despots. Sure, Saudi Arabia has pretty questionable civil rights and it is no democracy. But, I think US foreign policy has changed to an extent.

The other issue with Iraq is something similar to what is currently happening in South America. When one power leaves a vacuum, another will move in. During the 80's the Soviets moved into whatever region the US was not active. This is not a defense of US policy in the 80's, but it was a reality. Current US law prevents military training and involvement select South American countries (those not signing an agreement stating they will not seek extradition of US personnel to world courts or tribunals). As a result, China is now sending military advisors and the like to the area. Again, no matter how much someone may dislike Bush, it should in no way make a leader the likes of Chavez more palatable. A tyrant like this will invite questionable interests into the region, and slowly neutral countries will be entailed as well.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by I_Should_Be_Working_
> 
> You seem to forget that during the 1980s the United States actively supported Iraq as a check on Iran, which was perceived as a greater threat.
> 
> No, I don't forget.


Then how do you reconcile Iraq acting as the US proxy in the Iran-Iraq conflict with Iraq being one the "primary countries publicly challenging the western powers" and "Muslim agitator to the west".

The latter makes even less sense as Iraq was until the fall of Saddam a secular nation and Saddam was despised by the jihadists.

I find Chavez distinctly more palatable than Bush* - he has yet to invade anyone based on demonstrably spurious reasons. Plus, anyone who irritates the American right as much as he does has to be doing something right!

* I should say the Bush administration - the man himself seems reasonably personable if painfully slow witted and a major hypocrite. It's the slime that he has surrounded himself with that I really can't stand - Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.

------------------


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working (Jun 23, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


For a time Iraq was viewed as being the better of the two. Not just by the US, but Chirac of France as well. Iraq enjoyed the benefits until gassing the Kurds and invading Kuwait. Recall, by the late 80's, Saddam had built the 4th largest army in the world equiped with mainly eastern bloc hardware.

There is a role playing game enjoyed by despots the world over, playing chicken with the US. Middle Eastern leaders have resorted to this line when attempting to hedge regional power while facing difficult domestic situations. Look at Iraq, Libya, and Iran at their peak of threatening behavior. Each had domestic economic issues, internal politics, and what not that could be assuaged by bashing the US. By rallying populist support, the leader can maintain power, and will also appeal to the common Arab. Qaddafi literally tried to become the leader of a Pan-African muslim unity effort.

While I agree, Saddam had maintained something more secular than Iran, this lent itself to containing internal divisions. But, you can't deny he blatantly attempted to draw regional appeal following the first gulf war. His tactics changed with the changes in his circumstances. With the 12 years between conflicts, Saddam was the one waving in front of the US constantly. He also paid death compensation to the families of suicide bombers from Palestinian areas. No permanent despot is ever the favorite of fundamentalists. People like that can be undermining to the power base and demand allegiance to an agenda beyond that of the despot.

Currently in Iran hardliners are playing a similar game. Their domestic economy faces serious structural issues, but the hardliners favor state enterprises. The citizens are not content, so all the better to create a grand diversion with the west-bashing.

As for your comments regarding Chavez and the American right, you should really reconsider the "right" as it is as opposed to the cartoonist version favored by Canadian and Europeans. The socialist policies of Chavez leads to a slave culture as found in Cuba. No matter how much you disdain Bush, never give credence to tyrants.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

GMAC,

Let me say I am not fond of President Bush. I supported McCain in 2000 and I think Bush - with the exception of the tax cuts has been an economic disaster. The increase of the non-military spending has been nothing short of ridiculous and has created structural isssues that will create huge economic dislocation in the US. Had the Dems nominated someone like Lieberman I might have considered voting for him but Bush really was the lesser of two evils in 2004. That being said its a bit insulting that you continually demean the president's intelligence. He may be distracted, he may pursue the wrong policies and he definitely is not a first class orator BUT he is not slow witted! Do you have two Ivy league degrees? Have you managed to be elected governor of Texas or President? Bush may be wrong about everything else (and he is wrong about a lot of things!) but he is right on the most important issue of the day - the war against terror and tyranny. Amazing that such a slow witted man can recognize THE issue of the day when so many sophisticated minds cannot.

Karl

P.S. GMAC please try and respond without some anti-American cheap shot.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

The hardest part of an Ivy League education is getting in and Bush was guaranteed entry at both Yale and Harvard because of his family connections. You think they charge those fees and then flunk people? Hardly. Let's hear no more about his supposed academic prowess.

Regardless, I have never based my judgement of his intellect on his qualifications. I base it on his vocabulary, his diction and, by far the most important, his actions.

Bush, like every other mildly sentient person in the world, recognized after 9/11 that terrorism was the major issue facing us today. He formed a coalition to invade Afghanistan and remove the taliban. So far, so obvious.

From there his childish obsession with Iraq took over and rather than continuing to root out terrorist bases and start to fight the causes of terror - Muslim fundamentalism, 3rd world alienation from the west, poverty, western economic imperialism, the Palestinian question - he decided that he had to "take out" Saddam.

This has proved disastrous in terms of creating islamic fundamentalism and terrorism - because as soon as the US pulls out of Iraq - which they will - there are going to be thousands of angry young men looking for someone to shoot or blow up. And guess where they are going to head? London, Washington, Paris, Auckland, wherever there are westerners living in free and vulnerable societies.

That plus his abysmal reaction to Katrina, his disavowal of "Kenny Boy" Lay, his desire to bomb TV stations that don't agree with him, his attempt to appoint his own patently unqualified attorney to the _Supreme Court bench_, plus a million other little things that combine to make him a full-on moron.

But mainly because his Saddam obsession has made the world much less safe for me and my kids.

And please don't tell me about how Saddam was looking to build nuclear weapons or all the other hokey fantasies of the right. Whatever the French, Germans or Russians might have thought, they didn't invade. America and Britain did. The inspection regime has been shown to have be doing a fine job.

The rape rooms, genocide and local terrorism? Since when did the west ever care about any of that stuff? (as long as it happens far away of course)

------------------


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Oh, so now its a war against "terror and tyranny"? Well, when are we gonna "get" Mugabe, for starters? Hey, it just occurred to me, he hasn't been complicit in anything like 9/11, but, then, come to think it over, neither was Saddam!


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

JLibourel,

You are right the world should do somnething about Mugabe. But are you implying that bc the world doesn't right every wrong than it should't right anything?

Read this please:



I guess we just should have let Milosevic kill everyone, bc well, we werent doing anything about Burma or the DPRK.

And GMAC if you really believe that its Georgw Bush and not Islamo-fascism that has made your kids less safe then go get your wife and daughter fitted for a burqa - they will need if we follow policies like yours.

Karl


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

"I guess we should have let Milosevic kill everyone." Again, this is typical of the tendency of all too many people to reduce geopolitics to the level of professional wrestling--with strutting, deep-dyed arrogant villains and aggrieved martyrs, etc. The reality is far more gray. 

My Serbian friends will give you a very different picture of how events played out. I think the Bosniaks and Croats were by no means clean-handed either. Naturally, any humane person deplores atrocities on the part of whichever side commits them.

However, the bottom line in the fighting in former Yugoslavia is this:
It was of no moment to me as an American that the Slovenians kicked the JNA out of Slovenia (although objectively it was just as well that they did.) 

It was likewise of no moment to me that the Croats engaged in wholesale ethnic cleansing in purging the Serbs from Krajina where they had been living for centuries.

It was of no moment to me who controlled the greater part of Bosnia, Serbs or Bosniaks. Let's not forget that 24,000 Bosniaks served in the Waffen-SS and committed many atrocities against the Serbs (some of them later volunteered to help the Arabs fight Israel in 1948) and that during the recent fighting in that region many jihadi types from around the Muslim world flocked in to give support to the Bosniaks.

Nor for that matter was it of any moment to me whether Serbs or Kossovars controlled Kossovo. Nonetheless, the Kossovo Liberation Army seems like a singularly curious crew to have been the beneficiary of American military intervention. As I understand the matter, it was composed of three major factions. One were old-fashioned, hard-line Marxist-Leninists, the second were jihadi-type Muslim fanatics, the third (and considerably smaller faction) were Neo-Nazis. Great bunch of guys! However, the Kossovars were able to skillfully utilize the "Holocaust" paradigm and mobilize intervention on their side...and so it goes. I suppose we may see the same thing soon in the civil war in Dafur.

There are those who say that America is or should be the "world's policeman." Well, policemen get paid for their services. Until that happens, I rather see my tax dollars put to some more useful purposes in my country...or better yet, have taxes reduced altogether.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> And GMAC if you really believe that its Georgw Bush and not Islamo-fascism that has made your kids less safe then go get your wife and daughter fitted for a burqa - they will need if we follow policies like yours.


And we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud either, do we?

If you actually believe what you just wrote, that Canada or the U.S. is going to become a Muslim fundementalist theocracy because people don't agree with your assessment of the situation, then we can't have a serious discussion on this subject.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You have hit the nail squarely on the head, Bosthist. Karl89 should have his own forum devoted solely to periodically raising the alarm about Iran. A rubber forum, if possible.

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> I find Chavez distinctly more palatable than Bush* - he has yet to invade anyone based on demonstrably spurious reasons.


Chavez is a bloody Communist. If anyone ever decides to decently bomb this guy out of his office, I will volunteer to join the first row.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Albert_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Join the first row? Decently bomb? I don't know what that means.

Chavez has been twice elected leader of his country - end of.

------------------


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

If your not a Islamist your a bloody communist. Gee, I miss those fine chinese actors who captured the amoral evil of japs in those classic WW2 movies.To bad Cantiflas passed away. The number of latino actors finding employment as middle eastern third world brown type bad guys is enough to overwhelm even Chuck Norris.Personally, I worry about Nigerian's building a nuclear bomb and detonating it in Topanga canyon. I should tell you communism probably reached it's closest example in true practice in South America. It was called the Inca Empire and was destroyed by a spaniard capitalista named Pizzaro.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> And GMAC if you really believe that its Georgw Bush and not Islamo-fascism that has made your kids less safe then go get your wife and daughter fitted for a burqa - they will need if we follow policies like yours.
> 
> Karl


A comment as stupid as any I have read on this entire forum - including the guy who wants all his wedding guests to wear white neck-ties with tuxedoes to his wedding.

Comical.

------------------


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

GMAC,

I wear your scorn as a badge of honor! And I hope I am Chicken Little on the Iranian nuclear problem - would love to be proven wrong on this one. And if you don't think appeasement of Islamic fascism is a problem then read Bruce Bawer's new book.

https://www.brucebawer.com/

JLibourel - I lived in the Balkans for three years so I know the Serbian side of the story. Are they 100 wrong? Of course not but Milosevic had an opportunity in 1989 to begin the relatively smooth disolution of Yugoslavia and had done so Serbia would likely be in the EU and be a star among the post-Cold War Eastern European countries. The Serbs were their own worst enemies and hopefuly Slobo's death will allow them to put that chapter in their history behind them.

And Kav maybe you should ask your Romanian girlfriend about the evils of Communism or if you like I can happily enlighten you. The Communists may have been evil but they weren't suicidal - the same cannot be said of the enemy today.

Karl


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Yawn.

Right wing militarism dressed up as some kind of crusade by people who have never bothered talking to a muslim or reading any of the koran.

If you consider my scorn a badge of honour, prepare to be further feted.

------------------


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

GMAC,

I have talked to many Muslims. I have read some of the Koran - a cursory glance in a religion class so I am hardly the expert you are on the subject. And I have spent a considerable amount of time in Muslim countries. So I am not sure what your point is but then again you rarely have a point that makes sense.

And you will continue to fete me - great! But a party thrown by someone from Scotland who doesn't like whisky can't be much fun.

Karl

P.S. If believing that a nuclear Iran poses a threat makes me a right-wing militarist then so be it. If resorting to name calling, cliches, and anti-American cheap shots makes you a pedantic shill for appeasement then well so be that too. Vive la difference!


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

You have talked to many muslims? How many tried to kill you? Or forcibly convert you to to Islam?

None!

But you reckon that my wife will be in a burqua about 45 minutes after George Bush is out of office. Hhhmm.

And you have obviously never been to a Scottish party if you think we need whisky to make it go. And you have obviously never been to a muslim country, or probably out of the United States, judging by your comments thus far.

Do you really believe that the citizens of Pakistan or Indonesia or any other Muslim nation you care to name aim to establish a caliphate over Europe or North America? 

How did I become a pedantic shill for appeasement? By opposing insane wars?

Then Pedantic Shills for Appeasement*'r'us is my new slogan!!!!

*Appeasement meaning not joining ridiculous foreign adventures with no visible (or invisible) merit

------------------


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> You have talked to many muslims? How many tried to kill you? Or forcibly convert you to to Islam?


GMAC (and all the other Islamo-fascist appeasers), you might be interested in looking into this article of the Jerusalem Post, concerning the "Sudden Jihad Syndrome", as the author puts it:

Maybe you will change your appeasing mind after you have had the pleasure of being run over by an islamist in his SUV in the local shopping mall. Law-abidingness and civilized behaviour apparently do not indicate that an islamist (please note wording, I don't write muslim) is not dangerous.

All the best,
A.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Albert_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Daniel Pipes in the _Jerusalem Post_? This is the rankest kind of racist AIPAC horses**t. And you do know that use of the phrase "Islamo-fascism," or any variant thereof, invalidates any word that precedes, or follows, it - don't you? "Appeaser" isn't recommended, either.

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

Ah yes, Daniel Pipes. The man who insisted that Muslims were responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing without any evidence and who also advocated as late as 1988 that we strengthen ties with Saddam Hussein as a counterbalance against Iran. Amazing that you would even consider the words of an appeaser like Pipes.

Sudden Jihad Syndrome? All I can say is that anecdotal evidence is just that, anecdote. Honestly, can we say that there is such a thing as Sudden Christian Fundementalist Syndrome when true believers shoot doctors and employees of women's health clinics? Or should we all try to come up with a catchy phrase that encompasses unconnected random acts so that we can become an "expert" who will then be the go to person for the media every time a Muslim looks at someone funny.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> Honestly, can we say that there is such a thing as Sudden Christian Fundementalist Syndrome when true believers shoot doctors and employees of women's health clinics?


That's a completely different story.



> quote:Or should we all try to come up with a catchy phrase that encompasses unconnected random acts so that we can become an "expert" who will then be the go to person for the media every time a Muslim looks at someone funny.


"Looking at someone funny" might be a different thing than large-scale killings. And I actually don't think that your suggestion would be a completely wrong signal: just imagine what would happen in the Westbank or in Gaza or any of these plazes if a westerner "looked funny" at somebody.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Albert_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"Sudden Jihad Syndrome" is a catch phrase designed to gain its creator media attention. It has no basis in reality, just as "Sudden Christian Fundementalist Syndrome" has no basis in reality. That was my point, which you missed. Daniel Pipes can use his catch phrase any time a Muslim does anything, anywhere, that offends him, in his continued quest to demonize Muslims as Islamofacists, because you just never know when a Muslim will go off on a rampage against westerners. And when he does use it, I will call it "Sudden Bedwetter Syndrome". It must be tough to be Daniel Pipes--I mean, there might be Islamofacists behind that tree over there!

Addendum: I find the use of the word "syndrome" telling. I guess couching one's biases in what sounds like a clinical diagnosis makes them more palatable to the public.

I honestly don't care what happens in the West Bank or Gaza when a westerner gives a funny look to someone because your assertion is a red herring.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Albert_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The West Bank or Gaza? Are you mad? Why on Earth should the West Bank or Gaza be places of safety and repose for "Westeners"?

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> GMAC,
> 
> ...


I overlooked this nugget from Karl. Bruce Bawer? Right. I'll hustle right down to my local bookseller to pick up the latest geopolitical treatise from Professor Bawer; right after I finish the collected works of Daniel Pipes. The "enemy" is suicidal, is it? And what persuasive evidence do you have to support your alarming contention?


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Yckmwia_
> The West Bank or Gaza? Are you mad? Why on Earth should the West Bank or Gaza be places of safety and respose for "Westeners"?


Then, why should Europe be a place of safety and response for "Muslims"?


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working (Jun 23, 2005)

The debate witnessed here is a living metaphor of how world threats go unattended. Many here hate Bush and American policy so much, they just as soon see the likes of Iran, Chavez, and North Korea continue. 

Iran is doing everything to build a nuclear weapon. Does anyone believe this will simply be a non-event should it occur? All hands should be on deck to avoid such a scenario. Whether you are a left wing socialist Frenchman or a right wing, poison drinking snake handling, American evangelist, no should be neutral about Iran and the bomb.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Albert_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you gotta ask, you'll never know.

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by I_Should_Be_Working_
> 
> The debate witnessed here is a living metaphor of how world threats go unattended. Many here hate Bush and American policy so much, they just as soon see the likes of Iran, Chavez, and North Korea continue.
> 
> Iran is doing everything to build a nuclear weapon. Does anyone believe this will simply be a non-event should it occur? All hands should be on deck to avoid such a scenario. Whether you are a left wing socialist Frenchman or a right wing, poison drinking snake handling, American evangelist, no should be neutral about Iran and the bomb.


We've been down this road before, but apparently this topic is to be a recurring one around here, so here goes: Why should no one be neutral about Iran and the bomb? And what's wrong with Hugo Chavez? I know that he holds the wildly radical notion that Venezuelan oil should be used for the benefit of Venezuelans, but aside from that?

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Yckmwia,

Whenever I read one of your posts the term "useful idiot" comes to mind. Apparently only you, bin Laden and Iran's thuggish theocracy think someone can be neutral about Iran having nuclear weapons. Have you lost it man? Really - I am serious, have you lost it?

And GMAC thinks that Muslim terrorists are reasonable in their fight against the West! But George Bush has made his children less safe. 

Its Kafkaesque........

Karl


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working (Jun 23, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Yckmwia_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you really believe Chavez plans on using oil "for the people", then, please, do your research on similar economic schemes and what they have meant for per capita income, standard of living, and overall GDP. You will not find such programs are very successful, and worse, they frequently involve the taking of rights and freedom. Where is the freedom and opportunity in state run enterprises, and who holds the controls - certainly not "the people".

Did Venezuela have problems before? Most certainly. Are they solved with socialism, state control, and authoritarian regimes? No. And before someone can say these revolutions don't go far enough, I think the Khmer Rouge demonstrated that point.

Anyone who thinks Iran and bomb is nonevent deserves their fate. Same with North Korea.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by I_Should_Be_Working_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, I'm enlightened now: Hugo Chavez = Pol Pot. Thanks for the stimulating insights.

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

GMAC,

You write:

"And you have obviously never been to a muslim country, or probably out of the United States, judging by your comments thus far."

I lived in Sofia, Bulgaria from 1999 through 2002. I have traveled extensively throughout Europe and spent consideriable time in Turkey.

But then again you never let the facts get in the way, do you?

Karl


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> Yckmwia,
> 
> ...


Whenever I read one of your posts, Karl, the term "useless idiot" comes to mind. I know that you've lost it. In fact, I doubt that you ever had it, although I once entertained such a foolish notion. Oh, and that scary thing behind you? That's your shadow.

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Yckmwia,

Come on! You can do better than that! And I bet you entertain a lot of foolish notions.

Karl


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> Yckmwia,
> 
> ...


Nope. That's it for around here. I save the good stuff for the Marxist boards. They're a much tougher crowd.

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> GMAC,
> 
> ...


Amazing how travel narrows the mind isn't it?

Did you speak to anyone other than your mum and the cleaning lady?

------------------


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

GMAC,

My cleaning lady only spoke Bulgarian and after she once put a Brooks Brothers suit in the washing machine we spoke even less. And I speak to my mother once a week - whether she wants to hear from me or not!

And as to my "narrow" mind - we all can't quite defy logic and common sense the way you do.

Karl


----------



## NewYorkBuck (May 6, 2004)

> quote:And as to my "narrow" mind - we all can't quite defy logic and common sense the way you do.


Karl - as my mom always told me - never get into a rational argument with an dope - they will never have the sense to realize they are wrong. You may want to keep that in mind when dealing w Gmac....


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

NYB,

You are probably right but hopes dies last. We can't give up on GMAC and Yckmwia just yet.

Karl


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> NYB,
> 
> ...


Give up on me, Karl. You haven't a prayer.

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Yckmwia,

Capitulation is kinda your thing, huh?


Karl


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> Yckmwia,
> 
> ...


Now that's a good one. Keep working at it and you might snag that coveted VFW comedy circuit gig. You'll bring down the house.

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Yckmwia,

What's wrong with the VFW? And besides you aren't exactly Robert Benchley yourself. But I will hand it to you, when you post I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. 

Karl


----------



## Jill (Sep 11, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by NewYorkBuck_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


NYBuck ~ My Dad always told me, "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It will just frustrate you and irritate the pig!"


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> The hardest part of an Ivy League education is getting in and Bush was guaranteed entry at both Yale and Harvard because of his family connections. You think they charge those fees and then flunk people? Hardly. Let's hear no more about his supposed academic prowess.
> 
> ...


I notice that karl never responded to this - other than to warn me to buy burquas for my family.

------------------


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> And as to my "narrow" mind - we all can't quite defy logic and common sense the way you do.


OK, I'll bite - just exactly where have I defied logic and common sense?

------------------


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

GMAC,

Can we have a St. Pat's truce? Its nearly lunch time here and I am not sure I will be making it back to the office this afternoon - Erin Go Bragh and all that jazz.

So I am not ducking the question, its just that the siren call of a pint of Guinness is more enticing than this subject - for the moment anyway.

Hopefully Iran won't get the bomb before Monday but if they do there is a better than zero chance that a hangover may render it impossible for me to say I told you so.

Karl


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Fair enough. Tip one back for me. []

------------------


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

In light of the rapid deterioration of this thread, I suppose that this is as good a time as any to call it a day. I shall soon be too busy to look in here, or anywhere else, with great frequency, so I shall take my leave. To all my antagonists and punching bags, an amiable group of nit-wits and numbskulls if ever there was one, I say, with neither malice nor affection, on this, the holiest of holy days:

*Y*ou *C*an *K*iss *M*y *W*hite *I*rish *A*ss.​
Slainte mhath, slainte mhor.

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## Duane Gran (Jan 14, 2005)

The following article, by Juan Cole, brought up many counter points which suggests that Iran is not a threat to US safety and interests:

https://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060313_fishing_for_a_pretext_in_iran/

Jaun's reputation on Middle East studies is extensive, and his critiques of the President withstanding, he sheds a lot of light on a confusing subject. I found his analysis of the Iranian President's power (or lack thereof) and translation errors to be particularly illuminating.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

I just talked yesterday to my Iranian friend who had just gotten back from Teheran. Her father had been Minister in the Shah's government, and she and her family had had to flee the country with little more than the shirts on their backs. She said when she first re-visited the country a year or so ago, she still felt a bit ill at ease.

On this visit, she said the atmosphere seemed very free and easy and generally pleasant. Lots of women were going about casually dressed and so forth. Obviously, "thuggish theocracy" notwithstanding, Iran is no Afghanistan under the Taliban or our dear ally Saudi Arabia. She said the people liked and supported President Ahmedanjani (sp.?), but they were afraid he might provoke an American/Israeli attack because he shot his mouth off too much.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Yckmwia

I now know where your name comes from. I have always wondered. For what it's worth (I realize you are spending little if any time worrying about my opinion.) I like the name.

I'm staying out of this one.


----------

