I don't agree with the tone here, but basically true. Will say though, that if you are willing to throw around that term so loosely (terrorist) then you should all realize that "state terrorism" exists as well - it's just that you are all coddled by the state and have a perspective limited by largesse, idleness, and being spoonfed ideology and propaganda your whole lives. Think about it.
The situation isn't as simple as you make it out to be. Alot has happened in the middle east over the past 50 years or so - you should read about it. It would help you better understand the current situation. One thing we DO know for sure is that we DON'T know what is really going on behind the scenes. We don't know the short-intermediate-long term goals of either party (Iran, US, Israel, etc) in regards to the middle east. We don't know sht. You think the US made a MISTAKE with the Iraq WMD? Hell no! They knew what they were doing adn they aren't surprised by the potential civil war now. The US has been building 14 military bases and the world largest foreign embassy in Iraq... all the while they were saying the troops are coming home... Could it be we recognized the energy security situation and decided to make ourselves a proxy OPEC member? (US military now controls all Iraq oil fields... perhaps permanently?) nothing about any of this sht is transparent. There's no way we know what is truly going on or what may happen next... rambling
discriminatory? get some help dude... i personally dislike US foreign policy in general, starting from the revolting overthrow of democratically elected Mossadegh by the CIA in 1953, but there are some geopolitical realities - starting with Europe self-destroying itself over 2 WWs - that led to / allowed those abuses to happen, like it or not, and its now going to take much more than a bunch of hate-mongering women-slaughtering muslim brothers, fundamentalist mollahs & petty dictators to change that... and thankfully so methinks... also, i don't give a shit about p.c. americana in case it wasn't clear... and honestly u can think what u want AFAIAC if you like to read, try this: shirin ebadi, nobel peace prize 2003, iran awakening http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400064708/103-8019625-6485432?v=glance&n=283155
Yeah you mean like who gave Saddam the Chemical weapons to gas his own people? http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ Make sure you watch the videos.
dude what a waste of words! for a guy who complains about other posters 'limited perspective', valueless inputs etc at least we know you don't know shit...
Well this part of my point. The way in which you characterize the mullahs shows your bias. You say you don't care about pc Americana or US foreign policy, but you include a link to a book about the struggle against oppresion in Iran. What's your point? Are you trying to justify US transgressions in the region based on human rights obligations? Please. Our relationship with Iran brings to light the true nature of our Imperialist state. A close and objective look at the current nuclear dispute and the rhetoric being exchanged between all parties brings to light the unmistakable and critical flaws in US foreign policy. Flaws that exist to facilitate a non-public agenda. Every country has its pitfalls and negatives that can be highlighted and magnified by any propaganda machine, especially one as sophisticated and subtle as the US media. You come here and allude to my ignorance in this matter, yet you attach a link to a book about Iranian suppression by a Nobel peace-prize winner. I suppose you also think we "liberated" Iraq as well? Where can we spread democracy next? Destroy the axis of evil! Down with the muslim psychos and communist fanatics! They're all crazy! =( Have you ever considered why the current Iranian regime is so radical? Think about the history of that country and their view of the US. Only hard-liners such as they could emerge to overthrow the former US-backed shah and their rigid and archaic societal rules may exist to counter the equally extreme religious imperialist stance of the West (US + baby britain). It's "educated" people like you who focus on real and just causes, i.e. human rights and religious freedom, to inadvertantly further the administration's goal of demonizing Iran and distorting the true nature of the issue in the eyes of the US public. Aren't there problems in this country? Do we not have our own human rights issues? If you say no, then I think we're coming from two fundamentally different perspectives and will not see eye to eye. If you say yes, then I ask whose responsibility is it to address these rights abuses? A lone foreign government? How about a small but powerful alliance of foreign governments whose interests are in direct conflict with our own? I guess I'm trying to say (somewhat unsuccessfully) is that despite your general knowledge about US foreign policy, etc. I'm not sure you get it? Or maybe you do but you simply think we SHOULD be in Iran, for whatever reason. And what's this about pc Americana? explain? Frankly I think "pc-ism" died a while ago. Now we have cynicism, materialism, and indifference. We also have generations of over-educated but under-exposed "know-it-all's" who don't realize they too are a cog in the big machine and will contribute greatly to our greatest export (world domination and subjugation through financial, political, and military means) as they enthusiastically embrace and champion "just causes". Don't interpret that last sentence as a consipracy theory, or me as some quack. I'm not an "anti-American leftist liberal whatever-label-we-use-here" type of person. Just timply calling a dck a duck. Empires are hard to miss, they've existed throughout history and can be characterized quite easily. The US and its fiat dollar hegemony are no different.
p.c.: politically correct... sorry if it was unclear look, this is now in Chit Chat, i'd ask for a transfer on the basis of bsmeter's "wahabi terrorist bitches etc" post way back but perhaps thats not the reason, never mind, its there now... therefore not sure i want to continue this... but just to clear up a point or 2 perhaps: . no, i do not think u guys should be in Iran, nor that u will... think this time France won't fuck up and mislead the Iranians into believing they can split the Council -> war won't be necessary... a few targeted strikes on military installs at worst, if incentives & sanctions don't work... what wld u suggest, allow the current Iranian leadership to develop nuclear capabilities? . agree with u on propaganda, but thats just a tool to attempt to make real-politiks more 'palatable'... as regards real-politiks themselves, their geopolitical / geostrategic objectives etc, not so hard to grasp, i'm sure u agree... i guess where we differ is, i am more critical of a lack of balance at the top caused by the Europeans' stupidity (2 WWs) for the most part... thankfully Russia & China are now slowly coming back online... and it won't be long before the american hegemony excuse disappears and extremist regimes like the current one in Iran etc will denounce the Council's hegemonic attitude etc... but hey, going back to my earlier question above, what do u prefer?
those are not my thoughts... suggest you read shirin ebadi's book if you really think i am biased against the iranian religious dictatorship... another thing, i have LIVED in muslim countries poor and rich, and visited quite a few others as well, as late as a few months ago the Emirates notably, and have friends of arabic descent... not forming my views in a vacuum (not saying you are either)
. August 9. 2006 SouthAmerica: Today, A Folha de Sao Paulo published a front page story saying that Hugo Chavez has asked the Iranian president on his last trip to Iran: "If Iran would consider storing some of its nuclear warheads in Venezuela." Chavez wants to discourage the United States of a possible American invasion of his countryâ¦. ******************** âChávez discute no Irã possibilidade de armazenar armas nuclearesâ A Folha de Sao Paulo â August 9, 2006 O "Painel" da Folha de S.Paulo informou com exclusividade na edição desta quarta-feira que o presidente da Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, teria discutido com o presidente iraniano, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a possibilidade de armazenar em território venezuelano mÃsseis com ogivas que o Irã venha a produzir em seu programa nuclear. A conversa ocorreu durante visita de Chávez ao Irã, no mês passado. Para o presidente venezuelano, esta seria uma forma de dissuadir os EUA de um eventual ataque à Venezuela. Ele disse que a Coréia do Norte só não foi invadida pelos americanos até hoje porque tem armas nucleares, informa o "Painel", editado por Renata Lo Prete. Essa foi a quarta visita de Chávez ao paÃs islâmico desde 2000. A visita de dois dias ocorreu num momento em que o Irã está sob a mira da crÃtica internacional pelo apoio que tem dado ao Hizbollah e por seu programa nuclear. "Estaremos ao lado do Irã em todo momento, em qualquer circunstância", declarou o presidente venezuelano no inÃcio de sua visita ao paÃs. O governo iraniano diz que a meta do programa nuclear é produzir energia, mas os EUA, a União Européia e outros paÃses temem que seja produzir bomba⦠.