Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Mr. Geo. W. Bush, POTUS

'They try to spread their jihadist message -- a message I call, it's totalitarian in nature -- Islamic radicalism, Islamic fascism, they try to spread it as well by taking the attack to those of us who love freedom. '

Originally Posted by Mr. Juan Cole

Fascism is not even a very good description of the ideology of most Muslim fundamentalists. Most fascism in the Middle East has been secular in character, as with Saddam Hussein's Baath Party. Fascism involves extreme nationalism and most often racism. Muslim fundamentalist movements reject the nation-state as their primary loyalty and reject race as a basis for political action or social discrimination. Fascists exalt the state above individual rights or the rule of law. Muslim fundamentalists exalt Islamic law above the utilitarian interests of the state. Fascism exalts youth and a master race above the old and the "inferior" races. Muslim fundamentalists would never speak this way. Fascism glorifies "war as an end in itself and victory as the determinant of truth and worthiness." Muslim fundamentalists view holy war as a ritual with precise conditions and laws governing its conduct. It is not considered an end in itself.

Cole Contra Bush

Yes, "islamofascist" is an oxymoronic term. Fascism maniputates the dominant religion of a culture and uses it for its own ends. Those who want to use authoritarian means to enfore relugious ends are properly called theocrats. And this includes most of the "social right wing" in America. They are not fascist, they are theocratic.

This debate is another one of those that misses the point. Yes, fascism is secular and glorifies the state above all. And Islamic theocratism glorifies God above all and sees the state as subservient to its aims. But wether one is shaved, wears a black or brown uniform, and wears boots or has a long beard, wears white or black robes, and sandals is beyond the point. What is? They both want to annhilate their opponents whether it is other races or adherents of other faiths or interpretations of a faith. This seems enough of a commonality. Everything else is just so much splittiing of hairs

I might add taht it is important to understand each ideology on its own terms whether it is fundamentalism or fascism or communism. Each really can't be compared to the other. And each can only be defeated on its own terms. But this has little to do with the immorality of one against the other.

Your above two postings contradict each other. You cannot have clarity as to what different belief systems have as their real goal if you dismiss nominclature as uninportiant. Scince 911, we have seen the oxymoronic term 'islamofascism' used to justify the polices of this administration.
Words have meanings. Muddying the meaning of such serves no useful purpose. If someone is your enemy, it is foolish to lump them into a category that fitted a past enemy. Such practices are useful only for limiting infomation to the populace, a practice useful and needed only by tyrants.

No they don't.They clarify each other. We should understand each on their own terms. But I hear some liberals trying to make Islamo-fundamentalism seem to be not as bad as Communism or Fascism because they are Third World, dark skin, anti-Western, don't wear traditional uniforms, don't raise mass armies as commies or fascies did, or build concentration camps or labor camps as those ideologies did. No, the immorality quotient is the same as those other ideologies becasue all three hate the world, the individual, the family, freedom, good manners (except for serving their own causes), glorify death and destruction, the vanity of certain leaders, and on and on. And, interestingly enoug, all three hate Jews and Christians and freedom loving people of any faith.

So you are right. We can't fight Islamo-fascism or whatever you call it without undrestanding what makes it tick. But I sometimes feel that these debates descend into "Who is worse" and splitting of hairs over whose immorality is more stupid. Did the fact that Communists favor unions, for instance, make them less immoral than fascists? In the eyes of many leftists during the Second World War the answer was yes. The same with some conservatives vis-a-vis fascsim pre-WW II. ANd the same with radical pinkos, lefties, peaceniks today toward Islamic theocrats today because both far lefties and Islamo-fundies hate the West. And those terrorists are so handsome in their robes and beards aren't ehy? Maybe this discussion is not about any of this. I sort of wandered in the middle and didn't bother to read the hundred pages before.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Your above two postings contradict each other. You cannot have clarity as to what different belief systems have as their real goal if you dismiss nominclature as uninportiant. Scince 911, we have seen the oxymoronic term 'islamofascism' used to justify the polices of this administration.
Words have meanings. Muddying the meaning of such serves no useful purpose. If someone is your enemy, it is foolish to lump them into a category that fitted a past enemy. Such practices are useful only for limiting infomation to the populace, a practice useful and needed only by tyrants.

Herbal T, you are correct in several regards, but don't think for a moment that the selection of words was by happenstance or stupidity. It’s difficult to rationally war against some theocrats when your own theocrats (of a different strip, of course) form your political base. Difficult to rail against the foreign theocrats' strict reading of "God's word" when your own base of domestic theocrats' strict reading of their "God's word" is based on an even more tenuous history. Better to make the link to the simple idea of Nazis -- after all, Indiana Jones taught all of us how evil those guys were.

Originally Posted by salsabob

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Your above two postings contradict each other. You cannot have clarity as to what different belief systems have as their real goal if you dismiss nominclature as uninportiant. Scince 911, we have seen the oxymoronic term 'islamofascism' used to justify the polices of this administration.
Words have meanings. Muddying the meaning of such serves no useful purpose. If someone is your enemy, it is foolish to lump them into a category that fitted a past enemy. Such practices are useful only for limiting infomation to the populace, a practice useful and needed only by tyrants.

Herbal T, you are correct in several regards, but don't think for a moment that the selection of words was by happenstance or stupidity. It’s difficult to rationally war against some theocrats when your own theocrats (of a different strip, of course) form your political base. Difficult to rail against the foreign theocrats' strict reading of "God's word" when your own base of domestic theocrats' strict reading of their "God's word" is based on an even more tenuous history. Better to make the link to the simple idea of Nazis -- after all, Indiana Jones taught all of us how evil those guys were.

Excatly.

Bush is not FDR, Blair is not Churchhill and this is not WWII (or III).
But our government is infested with people who want to turn it into WWIII. :evil:

Here is a good opinion piece written by a local Arab-American doctor. Perhaps we should make him President.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Yes, "islamofascist" is an oxymoronic term. Fascism maniputates the dominant religion of a culture and uses it for its own ends. Those who want to use authoritarian means to enfore relugious ends are properly called theocrats. And this includes most of the "social right wing" in America. They are not fascist, they are theocratic.

You are mistaken.

A theocracy is government by religious officials and clergy. The religious/social right in America are nothing of the sort, except for a handful of fringe elements.

As for the Islamofascists, they do manipulate the dominant religion of their culture for their own ends. That's exactly what they are about.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Here is a good opinion piece written by a local Arab-American doctor. Perhaps we should make him President.

The problem with his view is that it's either naive or dishonest.

The following is quoted for purpose of discussion and illustration without intention of infringement or profit.

Healing the wounds of the Mideast

Mansoor Malik

Malik is a Roanoke doctor.

The situation in the Middle East has once again demonstrated the volatile nature of the region and the dire need for a peace process.

The emotions on both sides are extremely high, and each side continues to dehumanize the sufferings of the other to justify its cruel and immoral conduct.

In the midst of all this, hundreds of innocent people are being killed and thousands of lives are being destroyed. With each passing day the wounds and hatred are growing deeper. It is time to stop casting blame and do something to heal the terrible wounds.

Both sides present the conflict as a struggle for survival. This is far from truth.

No, it is the truth. Israel is fighting for its long-term survival.

Contrary to Arab notions, a peaceful Israel is not a threat to any nation and can contribute immensely toward progress and prosperity in the region. On the other hand, Israel is certainly not at risk of annihilation by Hezbollah. It enjoys peaceful relationships with the major Arab powers in the region.

It's certainly true that Israel is not a threat to the Arab nations around her. The Arabs, to my knowledge, rarely claim that they are. What they mostly claim is that Israel is illegitimate and immoral. Israel does not wish to wipe our her neighbors, Israel's neighbors do wish to destroy Israel, and some of them boast of as much.

Hezbollah's agenda during the current conflict is limited and includes mainly the release of Arab political prisoners in Israeli jails, who number in the thousands and include hundreds of women and children.

Here we find what might be naivete, but is probably dishonesty. 'In the current conflict' leaves out that the conflict in question is part of an ongoing effort, which has extended over years, to destroy Israel. Hizbollah is not an isolated force, it's an extension of Syria and Iran, and it operates on a multinational stage, it's not purely Lebanese. It's strings are pulled in Tehran and Damascus, not Beirut.

When the IDF penetrated Lebannon, they discovered that Hizbollah had much greater resources stockpiled than even the pessimists suspected, and that Hizbollah is for all practical purposes the government of southern Lebannon. They've been launching rockets into Israel for a long time, something the author ignores as if the 'current conflict' is something that can be dealt with in isolation.

The brutal destruction and killing in Lebanon goes far beyond any right of self-defense. Indeed, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights has indicated that war crimes are being committed by Israel in Lebanon and Gaza.

The author neglects the fact that the UN is not a neutral observer, they're firmly anti-Israeli. Their assessments of such matters are, at best, suspect.

Religious stereotyping of the Arab-Israel conflict is equally fallacious. For example, 20 percent of the population of the Jewish state is composed of Arab Muslims who are loyal to Israel. Members of the Muslim sect called Druze constitute an elite fighting force that has fiercely fought for Israel.

About 10 percent of the Palestinian population and 40 percent of the Lebanese population is Christian. Many of the public figures on the Palestinian side, such as George Habash, Hanan Ashrawi and even the late the Yassar Arafat's wife Suha, are Christians.

Even Hamas, which the U.S. and Europe (but not the U.N.) consider a terrorist organization, acknowledges in Article 31 of its charter that, "it is possible for the followers of the three religions -- Islam, Christianity and Judaism -- to coexist in peace and quiet with each other."

Here is an example of why the author might be naive, but is probably being dishonest:

Here is the text of Article 31: "Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism - to coexist in peace and quiet with each other. Peace and quiet would not be possible except under the wing of Islam. Past and present history are the best witness to that.

It is the duty of the followers of other religions to stop disputing the sovereignty of Islam in this region, because the day these followers should take over there will be nothing but carnage, displacement and terror. Everyone of them is at variance with his fellow-religionists, not to speak about followers of other religionists. Past and present history are full of examples to prove this fact.

"They will not fight against you in a body, except in fenced towns, or from behind walls. Their strength in war among themselves is great: thou thinkest them to be united; but their hearts are divided. This, because they are people who do not understand." (The Emigration - verse 14).

Islam confers upon everyone his legitimate rights. Islam prevents the incursion on other people's rights. The Zionist Nazi activities against our people will not last for long. "For the state of injustice lasts but one day, while the state of justice lasts till Doomsday."

"As to those who have not borne arms against you on account of religion, nor turned you out of your dwellings, Allah forbiddeth you not to deal kindly with them, and to behave justly towards them; for Allah loveth those who act justly." (The Tried - verse 8)

He quotes a line from Article 31 to indicate that hostility is not inherent, but look at the rest of the article that I gave you. I embolded certain bits to emphasize them.

Note the part he left out.

There are other articles in the Hamas Charter that call for total Islamic domination over Israel as well, such as Article Six. Article 32 goes on to cite the Protocols of the Elders of Zion(!) as an authoritative source with regards to the Jewish Conspiracy.

Yet the author simply cites Article 31 out of context, to assure us that Hamas is not a terrorist organization, and the UN is wise for seeing this.

Sorry, it's the fact that the UN refuses to face up to what Hamas and its ilk are that discredits the UN.

Jews and Muslims have a long and splendid history of coexistence and creativity. Despite less than ideal treatment by modern standards, Jews in Islamic lands suffered no holocaust or pogroms. They continued to play an important role in the Islamic societies until the 20th century.

True, but hardly relevant. The Islamist movement of today is quite a different creature than the empires of the Islamic heydey.

For example, as late as 1922, the Iraqi finance minister was a Jew. The departure of the Jewish community from the Arab countries is a regrettable cultural loss, but today the Jewish community enjoys special privileges by the Moroccan government, and the Libyan government has invited its Jewish community back with compensation.

Israel is surrounded by the Arabs and cannot be at odds with them indefinitely. It must understand and respect Arab sensibilities. Arab culture stresses hospitality and honor. The Israeli and U.S. insistence on humiliating Arab resistance before negotiating peace is doomed to failure.

You can only negotiate peace when the enemy wants peace. Yet neither Hizbollah nor Hamas has any interest in peace, and they are backed by states that want Israel destroyed. The Arab monarchies around them are more pragmatic, but not necesarily different in aim, though there's a better chance of a negotiated deal holding with them than with the fanatics.

We must acknowledge the sufferings of Palestinians and their quest for nationhood just as we acknowledge the sufferings of the Jews. The same "right to return" that forms the basis of the creation of the Jewish state after 2,000 years of exile also requires the return of Palestinian refugees as demanded by the U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194.

Nobody seriously believes that the survival of Israel is compatible with the 'right of return'. It's either/or.

Terrorism is a tactic that individuals, groups or nations use as an act of desperation, and renounce when given more respectable alternatives.

In the 1940s, various Jewish organizations such as Haganah and Irgun (later led by the Israeli Prime Minister Menachim Begin) carried out a series of terror attacks, including the bombings of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem and the British Embassy in Rome, killing scores of civilians. Begin was a wanted terrorist by the British authorities, yet later he negotiated peace with Egypt and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Why can't Israel and the U.S. negotiate peace with Hezbollah and Hamas? Both of these organizations carry strong electoral mandates from their respective populations. There is no alternative to a mutual dialogue except more violence.

There can't be a negotiated settlement because Hamas and Hizbollah don't want one.

Jews and Arabs are both Semitic people and trace their common ancestry to the patriarch Abraham. They are two branches of the same family, sharing common threads in religion, history, culture and traditions.

Let us hope and pray that they come together once again.

I think it's safe to say the author is a propagandist. At best, he might simply be misinformed and naive, but he puts the standard anti-Israeli talking points into a very nicely worded and deceptive package, so it's probably deliberate.

Sorry about the length, but this sort of propaganda, disguised as appeals for peace and reason, is part of the problem in this mess. It needs to pointed out.

Just so it's clear that I'm not making this stuff about Hamas up, here is a link to to an English translation of their Charter.

Charter of Hamas

One could note that organizations change, but note too that the best Hamas was able to talk about maybe offering a month or two ago in talks with Israel was an 'implicit' recognition of Israel's right to exist. Can anyone read that charter and tell me that the Israelis would be smart, or even sane, to settle for a wink and a nod from Hamas?!

It's harder to pin down Hizbollah. The closest thing I can find to a published 'charter' is a letter with a paragraph in it about the necessity for the destruction of Israel, but there's some dispute about it. OTOH, we can observe their alliances, their actions, and the words of their leader about the Jews, so it's not as if we're operating in the dark.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Here is a good opinion piece written by a local Arab-American doctor. Perhaps we should make him President.

The problem with his view is that it's either naive or dishonest.

The following is quoted for purpose of discussion and illustration without intention of infringement or profit.

<<< EXHAUSTIVE REPUDIATION DELETED >>>

Sorry about the length, but this sort of propaganda, disguised as appeals for peace and reason, is part of the problem in this mess. It needs to pointed out.

H-m-m-m. The author you castigate is a Lebanese Christian. What motivates him, do you think?

All this talk about Hezbollah and civilians misses the point by far. Hezbollah is just a tool of Shiite Islamist Iran. Ahmedinajad is just another Hitler and his goals are essentially the same as Hitler's were in 1936. The goal is the same (annhilation of European Jews then, annhilation of Israeli Jews now), the projected methods of destruction both involve WMD (zyklon B gas then, nuclear and atomic weapons now), and the regimes are essentially of the same moral caliber (Nazi and fascist then, Islamofascist now). Even goals not involving Jews are similar (Aryans rule the world, Shiite Muslims rule the Ummah and the infidels, the Swastika planted everywhere, the Green flag with moon and crescent planted everywhere). Lebanon is the testing ground for tbe new type of warfare involving terrorism, WMD, and guerilla insurgencies about to be inflicted massively on democracies just as Spain was the prelude for the blitzkreig style of warfare in 1936-39. Sure, historical analogies are never exact. But here are two articles involving Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who is the inspiration for and the godfather of Iran's nuclear program. One is from today and one is from five years ago. Enjoy the articles.
Iran’s Leader Vows to Continue Nuclear Program
Sign In to E-Mail This Print Reprints Save

By MICHAEL SLACKMAN
Published: August 21, 2006
TEHRAN, Aug. 21 — Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said today that Iran would continue to “forcefully” pursue its nuclear program. The remarks came one day before a self-imposed deadline for responding to a package of incentives aimed at persuading Iran to voluntarily stop enriching uranium.

Skip to next paragraph
Hostilities in the Mideast
Go to Complete Coverage »

In a speech to a group described by Iranian television news as “Islamic intellectuals,” Ayatollah Khamenei stayed consistent with Iran’s confrontational, no-backing-down tone, while at the same time remaining vague in terms of substance. He gave no indication of what “forceful” meant, though over the past week, and again today, officials said Iran would refuse to give up enrichment.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran has made up its mind based on the experience of the past 27 years to forcefully pursue its nuclear program and other issues it is faced with and will rely on God,” he said in remarks reported on the Iranian state news agency. “Be patient and hopefully we will taste a sweet outcome.”

Iran’s defiance was offered up on several fronts today, even as Iranian officials said that within 24 hours the leadership would give a formal response to the incentive proposal offered by the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany. One official, in an interview with the Iranian Fars News Agency, said Tehran was moving ahead with plans to start up a “heavy water” plant that would feed a nuclear reactor. The Associated Press reported that Iran turned inspectors away from a nuclear facility in Natanz, which would be a violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

One day earlier, Iran held military exercises in which it test fired surface-to-surface missiles during the second day of war games.

But amid the tough-talk and missile firing, Tehran did not offer up any details of how it would respond to the incentive package. The United States and Europe have accused Iran of wanting to develop weapons, while Iran has insisted it is pursuing civilian peaceful nuclear energy. Though Iran had initially spoken favorably about the incentive package, its tone changed last month when the United Nations Security Council ordered Iran to halt enrichment by Aug. 31 or face political and economic sanctions.

“Arrogant powers and the U.S. are putting their utmost pressure on Iran while knowing Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons,” Ayatollah Khamenei said today.

Iranian officials have also threatened to keep their nuclear work hidden from all public view if the Security Council tries to force it to stop. Iran’s chief national security official and lead nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, was quoted by the Iranian television news earlier this month as saying that under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, “if we are threatened we can act in secret.”

He went on to say Iran would interpret sanctions as just such a threat.

Political analysts in Tehran with personal relationships with people in the government and security agencies said they were expecting Iran to offer a response that amounted to conditional approval of the incentive package — accepting some elements in whole, calling for negotiating over other elements, while rejecting the demand that it completely stop uranium enrichment.

At the same time, they said, the Iranian leadership was already preparing for sanctions, but these leaders were also hoping that by leaving room for additional negotiations, China and Russia would help Iran buy some more time without sanctions.

“As usual, nobody really expects Iran to give a definitive answer to the package,” said Mohammad Hossein Hafezian, a senior researcher at the Center for Scientific Research and Middle East Strategic Studies in Tehran. “It is very difficult for this system to make compromise — to reverse or retreat.”

For Iran’s leadership, negotiations over the nuclear program are a flashpoint in an internal debate over how far to integrate Iran into the international community in political, diplomatic and economic terms, political analysts and diplomats here said. Reaching an agreement with Europe and the United States on the nuclear program could open a door that the clerical leadership here is not prepared to open, fearful that foreign investment and renewed diplomatic relations with the West would undermine their strict authority and their ideological grip on power.

“The purity of their system would be broken, lost,” Dr. Hafezian said. “They don’t want any kind of power sharing. They want to maintain final say in anything they do.”

In addition to responding to the incentive offer, officials said today that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would formally announce next week Iran’s decision regarding the demand that it stop uranium enrichment by the end of the month. That announcement, however, is expected to be substantively redundant, at least in the short term.

It was unclear how Iran would ultimately respond if it were saddled with biting sanctions. Dr. Hafezian said that there was speculation that if Tehran found itself under too much international pressure, it might ultimately accept a Russian proposal to conduct enrichment in Russia, and not in Iran. But for the time being, the slogans coming from officials here pointed in only one direction — a refusal to suspend its nuclear program.

More Articles in International »

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/21/wo...rtner=homepage

http://www.iran-press-service.com/ar...ats_141201.htm


RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL

TEHRAN 14 Dec. (IPS) One of Iran’s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.

Analysts said not only Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s speech was the strongest against Israel, but also this is the first time that a prominent leader of the Islamic Republic openly suggests the use of nuclear weapon against the Jewish State.

"It seems that Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani is forgetting that due to the present intertwinement of Israel and Palestine, the destruction of the Jewish State would also means the mass killing of Palestinian population as well", observed one Iranian commentator.

While Israel is believed to possess between 100 to 200 nuclear war heads, the Islamic Republic and Iraq are known to be working hard to produce their own atomic weapons with help from Russia and North Korea, Pakistan, also a Muslim state, has already a certain number of nuclear bomb.

In a lengthy speech to mark the so-called "International Qods (Jerusalem) Day" celebrated in Iran only, Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani, who, as the Chairman of the Assembly to Discern the Interests of the State, is the Islamic Republic’s number two man after Ayatollah Ali Khameneh’i, said since Israel was an emanation of Western colonialism therefore "in future it will be the interests of colonialism that will determine existence or non-existence of Israel".

Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani made the unprecedented threat as, following new suicide operations inside Israel and against Israeli settlements by Palestinian extremists in PA-controlled zones, responded by Israel’s heaviest bombarding of Palestinian cities, police, communication and radio-television installations, killing and wounding more than 200 people on both sides, resulted in the halting of all contacts between Israel and the PA of Mr. Yaser Arafat.

He said since Israel is the product of Western colonialism, "the continued existence of Israel depends on interests of arrogance and colonialism and as long as the base is helpful for colonialism, it is going to keep it.

Hashemi-Rafsanjani advised Western states not to pin their hopes on Israel's violence because it will be "very dangerous".

"We are not willing to see security in the world is harmed", he said, warning against the "eruption of the Third World War.

"War of the pious and martyrdom seeking forces against peaks of colonialism will be highly dangerous and might fan flames of the World War III", the former Iranian president said, backing firmly suicide operations against Israel.

Quoted by the official news agency IRNA, Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani said weakening of Palestinian Jihad is "unlikely", as the Palestinians have come to the conclusion that talks would be effective only "in light of struggle and self-sacrifice- the two key elements that gave way to beginning of the second Intifada".
Iranian analysts and commentators outside Iran immediately reacted to Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s statement, expressing fear that it might trigger an international backlash against Iran itself, giving Israel, the United States and other Western and even Arab nations to further isolate Iran as a source of threat to regional security.
"Jews shall expect to be once again scattered and wandering around the globe the day when this appendix is extracted from the region and the Muslim world", Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani warned, blaming on the United States and Britain the "creation of the fabricated entity" in the heart of Arab and Muslim world.

"The man who considers himself as the most able politician in the Islamic Republic utters such nonsense and empty threats at a very time that the hard line and extremist government of Israel under Mr. Ariel Sharon is looking for justification of its repressive policy against Palestinians", said Mr. Ahmad Salamatian, a veteran political analyst based in Paris.

"At a time that the right wing Israeli government is claiming that the very existence of Israel and the Jews are threatened and uses this pretext as an instrument to advance its policy of repression in Palestine, such statements and ushering such dangerous menaces by one of Iran’s top officials is nothing but bringing water to Israel’s propaganda mill, providing it with more justifications explaining its present maximalist policy", he told the Persian service of Radio France Internationale.

Though Mr. Salamatian is of the opinion that Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s words are part of both his own show and the ongoing internal tensions between conservatives and reformers, however, he also agrees with other Iranian analysts that his "untimely" menace could backfire, becoming a justification for threats against Iran, at a time that the United States and its allies are determined to continue the fight against international terrorism.

"One of Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s main characteristics in Iranian politics during the past twenty years is that in order to preserve his own position, he is ready to set fire to all the Caesareas for one handkerchief, including, in the present case, providing Israel with enough pretext to attack Iran", he noted, adding: "for the time being and what is important for Mr. Sharon is that this kind of statements are open invitation for more violence, an encouragement to extremists on either side of the Israel-Palestine conflict".

Observing that despite the fact that Israel is believed to have more than one hundred atomic warheads and the necessary technology to transport them to the very heart of Iran and elsewhere, but no Israeli official nor any newspaper have ever raised the slightest possibility of an atomic threat, "even in defence of their very existence", Mr. Salamatian wondered the reasons behind Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s declaration, which he said should be taken seriously "considering the rank of the man who pronounced it". ENDS RAFSANJANI NUKE THREATS 141201

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...articleId=3147

More from that Dangerous, Psychotic Whackjob Fuzzy-Wuzzy over in Eye-ran

Regretfully, some believe that the nuclear bomb can be effective in international relations. They're wrong, because the time for nuclear bombs has ended. We know that. These nuclear arsenals will not benefit anyone.They have to spend so much money destroying them. If the nuclear bomb could have saved anyone, it would have prevented the collapse of the Soviet Union. If the nuclear bomb could have created security, it would have prevented, perhaps, September 11th. If the nuclear bomb could have done anything, it could have, perhaps, stopped the Palestinian intifada.
Today is a time of thought and ideas. We know that and we felt that across the world.

Stop this Maniac before it too late!!

Originally Posted by ;179868

No they don't.They clarify each other. We should understand each on their own terms. But I hear some liberals trying to make Islamo-fundamentalism seem to be not as bad as Communism or Fascism because they are Third World, dark skin, anti-Western, don't wear traditional uniforms, don't raise mass armies as commies or fascies did, or build concentration camps or labor camps as those ideologies did. No, the immorality quotient is the same as those other ideologies becasue all three hate the world, the individual, the family, freedom, good manners (except for serving their own causes), glorify death and destruction, the vanity of certain leaders, and on and on.

It seems to me is you are conflating the moral nature of the enemy with the threat posed by the same. The Soviet Union was a far greater threat to the axis in WW II and to the USA in the Cold War than al Qaeda is to the USA in the WOT. The reason, of course, is that the Soviet Union was far, far more powerful (hence dangerous) than al Qaeda.

Even if you consider al Qaeda more evil than the USSR that doesn't make them them less tolerable or "worse" than the USSR.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

... Even if you consider al Qaeda more evil than the USSR that doesn't make them them less tolerable or "worse" than the USSR.

Mike, kudos for trying to apply logic to an issue driven by emotion. Sadly, it's like arguing that vermillion is a shade of red with those firmly convinced its green. Even a dictionary and color chart never quite suffice.

Not sure if this has already been posted, but I found this interesting:


A new map of the Middle East
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899

Because it's what they really believe in.

Quote :

America ponders cutting Iraq in three

AN independent commission set up by Congress with the approval of President George W Bush may recommend carving up Iraq into three highly autonomous regions, according to well informed sources.

The Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by James Baker, the former US secretary of state, is preparing to report after next month’s congressional elections amid signs that sectarian violence and attacks on coalition forces are spiralling out of control. The conflict is claiming the lives of 100 civilians a day and bombings have reached record levels.

The Baker commission has grown increasingly interested in the idea of splitting the Shi’ite, Sunni and Kurdish regions of Iraq as the only alternative to what Baker calls “cutting and running” or “staying the course”. …”

Whether or not this is a better strategy than the “cut and WON” strategy I tend to favor, it IS a strategy, and it IS worthy of exploration. Not to mention, Senator Biden’s been trying to “sell” this strategy for months.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

It seems to me is you are conflating the moral nature of the enemy with the threat posed by the same. The Soviet Union was a far greater threat to the axis in WW II and to the USA in the Cold War than al Qaeda is to the USA in the WOT. The reason, of course, is that the Soviet Union was far, far more powerful (hence dangerous) than al Qaeda.

Even if you consider al Qaeda more evil than the USSR that doesn't make them them less tolerable or "worse" than the USSR.

The difference is that the USSR was sane, the Al-Qaeda and Iranian types are not.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Because it's what they really believe in.

Quote :

A handful of very influential Repub. Senators have let it be known that after Nov. 7, they are going to break with the Bush team and go another direction. They have influenced (and been influenced by) members of Baker's commission. Their telegraphing their intent is what led to Rice's trip to carry the "last chance" message to Baghdad's Green Zone.

By this time next year, the official dividing of Iraq into three governing "zones" will be nearing completion (maybe four zones with Baghdad suffering the 'international city' kiss-of-death perhaps worst than what Jerusalem and Beirut suffer). Essentially, arriving at what we could have much more easily obtained while maintaining our prestige, hegemony, and deterrence, if we had not "Race to Baghdad" in March 2003 but simply (relatively) converted the "No Fly Zones" into "No Go Zones." No, nobody wanted to hear that then; too Clintonesque

No, we’ll soon have the ‘new’ approach – the Baker (or is it Biden) approach. And it will make sense to most - within the context of all other options.

BUT the situation-on-the-ground is completely different now. And I suspect no one will listen to the new suggestion of how ruthless and despicable our overt but particular our covert efforts will now need to be to achieve the same ends. While the perception will suggest, the reality is that the ugliness will not be going away; just morphing into a different dimension.

A few years from now, remember, how much you wanted to both feel safer and to have the carnage (beamed into your living rooms every night on the TV or highlighted on your homepage) to just go away. Remember that when reading, a few years from now, how ruthless and despicable, how ugly, your own covert agencies and agents behaved. Remember that, and perhaps you may forgive them.

Originally Posted by salsabob

By this time next year, the official dividing of Iraq into three governing "zones" will be nearing completion

As I have posted before, Kurdistan is essentially an independent state already, and has been since ~1991. Any attempt to draw "official" borders for Kurdistan that do not include Kirkuk will result in immediate military action from the Pesh Merga. They've been very clear about that and we have no reason to doubt them.

Now, as I've written, this will probably not lead to a "civil war", just a bloodbath and a humanitarian emergency. Still, it's moving the opposite direction of stability.

Originally Posted by Finch

As I have posted before, Kurdistan is essentially an independent state already, and has been since ~1991. Any attempt to draw "official" borders for Kurdistan that do not include Kirkuk will result in immediate military action from the Pesh Merga. They've been very clear about that and we have no reason to doubt them.

Now, as I've written, this will probably not lead to a "civil war", just a bloodbath and a humanitarian emergency. Still, it's moving the opposite direction of stability.

For some areas, stability will be a key objective of our's; for other areas, the opposite will be our cherished goal.

Yes, the Kurds must be given Mosul, Kirkuk and the oil fields. Stability, here, is an objective. We need to station a force within 'Kurdistan' on the pretext of protecting them from 'Sunnistan' and 'Shiastan' but in reality to provide over-the-horizon force projection in the entire region and to serve as a trip wire to keep Turkey 'friendly and a poke in the eye to Syria and Iran. We need to bendover backwards with Turkey to make this happen and, likely necessary, bid out some key assassinations of Pesh Merga to lower their lean against Turkey (but not Iran or Syria)

What we need to do in Shiastan and Sunnistan will be a lot uglier than instability. We need to provoke bitter historical repugnacies between Arab and Persain as well as Sunni and Shia, and it needs to impact Iran in a way (4th GW) that makes them understand the irrelevancy of nuclear weapons and have them begging for partnership with the Great Satan to bring some semblence of security.

A little bit Nixonian, a lot Brzezinskian ruthlessness -- and near complete removal of baby boomer idealism.