|
|
Post by Cranky on Sept 25, 2007 16:41:30 GMT -5
I urge you now, for your own health, do NOT persue this line of questioning because there will much crankiness in your future. If you have reached a point where you have a huge map of the world on your wall and coldly calculating "what if" scenarios that have a "greater good" then you need......you need....you need to chase squirrels up trees, run naked through the woods, chase tail, ANYTHING to get your mind away from it. Last night, I was listening to Ahmandinajad in Columbia till 4 in the morning. Why? Because I am not chasing squirrels. Don't we all want to rule the world? Not you, not I, nobody on this board has what it takes to be a true politician. None of us has the ability to deliberatly lie with contempt against the people who trust and believe in us. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Sept 25, 2007 16:54:23 GMT -5
Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1By Juan Cole Sept. 24, 2007 | Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to New York to address the United Nations General Assembly has become a media circus. But the controversy does not stem from the reasons usually cited. The media has focused on debating whether he should be allowed to speak at Columbia University on Monday, or whether his request to visit Ground Zero, the site of the Sept. 11 attack in lower Manhattan, should have been honored. His request was rejected, even though Iran expressed sympathy with the United States in the aftermath of those attacks and Iranians held candlelight vigils for the victims. Iran felt that it and other Shiite populations had also suffered at the hands of al-Qaida, and that there might now be an opportunity for a new opening to the United States. Instead, the U.S. State Department denounced Ahmadinejad as himself little more than a terrorist. Critics have also cited his statements about the Holocaust or his hopes that the Israeli state will collapse. He has been depicted as a Hitler figure intent on killing Israeli Jews, even though he is not commander in chief of the Iranian armed forces, has never invaded any other country, denies he is an anti-Semite, has never called for any Israeli civilians to be killed, and allows Iran's 20,000 Jews to have representation in Parliament. There is, in fact, remarkably little substance to the debates now raging in the United States about Ahmadinejad. His quirky personality, penchant for outrageous one-liners, and combative populism are hardly serious concerns for foreign policy. Taking potshots at a bantam cock of a populist like Ahmadinejad is actually a way of expressing another, deeper anxiety: fear of Iran's rising position as a regional power and its challenge to the American and Israeli status quo. The real reason his visit is controversial is that the American right has decided the United States needs to go to war against Iran. Ahmadinejad is therefore being configured as an enemy head of state. The neoconservatives are even claiming that the United States has been at war with Iran since 1979. As Glenn Greenwald points out, this assertion is absurd. In the '80s, the Reagan administration sold substantial numbers of arms to Iran. Some of those beating the war drums most loudly now, like think-tank rat Michael Ledeen, were middlemen in the Reagan administration's unconstitutional weapons sales to Tehran. The sales would have been a form of treason if in fact the United States had been at war with Iran at that time, so Ledeen is apparently accusing himself of treason. The rest.
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Sept 25, 2007 16:56:39 GMT -5
An intersting paragraph:
David Wurmser, until recently a key Cheney advisor on Middle East affairs and the coauthor of the infamous 1996 white paper that urged an Iraq war, revealed to his circle that Cheney had contemplated having Israel strike at Iranian nuclear research facilities and then using the Iranian reaction as a pretext for a U.S. war on that country. Prominent and well-connected Afghanistan specialist Barnett Rubin also revealed that he was told by an administration insider that there would be an "Iran war rollout" by the Cheneyites this fall.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Sept 25, 2007 17:57:37 GMT -5
Let's do a quick and dirty analysis of this article.....
By Juan Cole
Sept. 24, 2007 | Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to New York to address the United Nations General Assembly has become a media circus. But the controversy does not stem from the reasons usually cited.
The media has focused on debating whether he should be allowed to speak at Columbia University on Monday, or whether his request to visit Ground Zero, the site of the Sept. 11 attack in lower Manhattan, should have been honored. His request was rejected, even though Iran expressed sympathy with the United States in the aftermath of those attacks and Iranians held candlelight vigils for the victims. Iran felt that it and other Shiite populations had also suffered at the hands of al-Qaida, and that there might now be an opportunity for a new opening to the United States.
If fact, he said that he wanted to visit the site and discuss the causes that led to his action. HIS words, not mine. The ground where 3000 people were murdered should be a pulpit for anti-American rants. Should we ignore what comes out of the mans own mouth and read into it some wonderfull praises?
Instead, the U.S. State Department denounced Ahmadinejad as himself little more than a terrorist. Critics have also cited his statements about the Holocaust or his hopes that the Israeli state will collapse. He has been depicted as a Hitler figure intent on killing Israeli Jews, even though he is not commander in chief of the Iranian armed forces, has never invaded any other country, denies he is an anti-Semite, has never called for any Israeli civilians to be killed, and allows Iran's 20,000 Jews to have representation in Parliament.
But he wants to erase Israel from the face of the earth "democratically". This is what he said last night. He wants "free democratic elections" amongst ALL the people who live and lived there. In other words, he wants the occupied territories and Israel to be one under majority rule. Of course, that will mean that the Israeli's will be badly outnumbered by the Arabs and in essence, it would ERASE Israel as a Jewish state. Wonderfully selective logic that sells well to the Arabs. Why stop at the Israeli border? Let's group all of the Middle East as one state and let majority rule. In essance, since Iranian consider themselves Persian ina sea of Arabs, it would erase Iran from the map. Of course, to his mind, it means nothing that Iran supports Hezzbollah and effectivly undermining a majority Lebanese government. Like I said, wonderfully selected and twisted logic that sells well to some audiences.
There is, in fact, remarkably little substance to the debates now raging in the United States about Ahmadinejad. His quirky personality, penchant for outrageous one-liners, and combative populism are hardly serious concerns for foreign policy. Taking potshots at a bantam cock of a populist like Ahmadinejad is actually a way of expressing another, deeper anxiety: fear of Iran's rising position as a regional power and its challenge to the American and Israeli status quo. The real reason his visit is controversial is that the American right has decided the United States needs to go to war against Iran. Ahmadinejad is therefore being configured as an enemy head of state.
Rising regional power is a euphemism for Iranian hegemony of the region. The fact that only ONE country in the region supports Iran and the rest are arming to the teeth in response to Iranian government ambition is not really relevent to the author. Secondly, the domino effect of nuclearization of the most unstable region on the planet is not really important either to this author.
And it goes on and on.........
Whoever the author is, he is selectivly spinning and to use his words...."showing remarkably little substance". He is just as credible as FOX news.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Sept 25, 2007 18:18:42 GMT -5
An intersting paragraph: Cheneyites.Interesting moniker .... shows a whole pile of bias too. Not Cheneyists, or Cheneyians ... oh no ... let's use Cheneyites!!! Let's brand him a way that evokes anger, or labels him with the enemy-du-jour ... Every American knows that there is a war in Iraq and that Shiites live their - let's use a word that brings that to the front of the populous' minds.  Why not just say Cheney supporters? |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Sept 25, 2007 18:46:57 GMT -5
An intersting paragraph: Cheneyites.Interesting moniker .... shows a whole pile of bias too. Not Cheneyists, or Cheneyians ... oh no ... let's use Cheneyites!!! Let's brand him a way that evokes anger, or labels him with the enemy-du-jour ... Every American knows that there is a war in Iraq and that Shiites live their - let's use a word that brings that to the front of the populous' minds. Why not just say Cheney supporters? Wow, talk about overreacting. Apparently it evoked anger in you, but I didn't even notice it. Why focus on a single word and ignore the overall point of the article? |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Sept 25, 2007 19:31:27 GMT -5
For a small fee, you can send them to me and I will phsychological torture, deprogram convince them out of their needy ways.   I tried Tanya Harding . . . didn't work. Maybe I'll try Steve Downey. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Sept 25, 2007 19:42:58 GMT -5
Interesting moniker .... shows a whole pile of bias too. Not Cheneyists, or Cheneyians ... oh no ... let's use Cheneyites!!! Let's brand him a way that evokes anger, or labels him with the enemy-du-jour ... Every American knows that there is a war in Iraq and that Shiites live their - let's use a word that brings that to the front of the populous' minds. Why not just say Cheney supporters? Wow, talk about overreacting. Apparently it evoked anger in you, but I didn't even notice it. Why focus on a single word and ignore the overall point of the article? No anger invoked in me ... I myself do not support any political stripe, but you can tell pretty easy from the articles posted which stripes the authors (and sometimes the posters) support. When I see a bias, even if it is a perceived one, I will point it out. |
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on Sept 25, 2007 19:57:01 GMT -5
Wow, talk about overreacting. Apparently it evoked anger in you, but I didn't even notice it. Why focus on a single word and ignore the overall point of the article? No anger invoked in me ... I myself do not support any political stripe, but you can tell pretty easy from the articles posted which stripes the authors (and sometimes the posters) support. When I see a bias, even if it is a perceived one, I will point it out. Everyone is biased. Ideas are negociated. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Sept 25, 2007 22:48:27 GMT -5
An intersting paragraph: Cheneyites.Interesting moniker .... shows a whole pile of bias too. Not Cheneyists, or Cheneyians ... oh no ... let's use Cheneyites!!! Let's brand him a way that evokes anger, or labels him with the enemy-du-jour ... Every American knows that there is a war in Iraq and that Shiites live their - let's use a word that brings that to the front of the populous' minds. Why not just say Cheney supporters? US and Canadian politics have left reality and firmly planted themselves into Bizarro world. The issues have become so partisan that they are no longer important in themselves but rather how they can be used and abused to discredit the opposition. For me, it's not about Ahmadinejad or Iran in off itself. It's about the domino effect for nuclearization of the most unstable region on the planet. Period. End of story. You read a million words and hear a billion more yet the heart of the issue is overwhelmed and obscured at every turn by partisan politics. This lack of focus is making me less secure by the second. So....forget Ahmadinejad, forget Bush, forget Chaney, forget Iraq, forget about everything but ONE thing.... Is there anyone that can make the case that Iran acquiring nuclear weapons will make the region and the world a safer place? Can anyone make the case that widespread acquisition of nuclear weapons in the Middle East will make the region and the world a safer place? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Sept 25, 2007 22:49:59 GMT -5
For a small fee, you can send them to me and I will phsychological torture, deprogram convince them out of their needy ways. I tried Tanya Harding . . . didn't work. Maybe I'll try Steve Downey. What kind of pittance is that? BC makes that in a week. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Sept 26, 2007 7:14:09 GMT -5
I tried Tanya Harding . . . didn't work. Maybe I'll try Steve Downey. What kind of pittance is that? BC makes that in a week.  That's just the down payment, see? You'll get the rest when the job is finished. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Sept 30, 2007 13:35:38 GMT -5
My Meeting with AhmadinejadStephen Zunes | September 28, 2007 Editor: John Feffer Foreign Policy In Focus This past Wednesday, I was among a group of American religious leaders and scholars who met with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in New York. In what was billed as an inter-faith dialogue, we frankly shared our strong opposition to certain Iranian government policies and provocative statements made by the Iranian president. At the same time, we avoided the insulting language employed by Columbia University president Lee Bollinger before a public audience two days earlier.
The Iranian president was quite unimpressive. Indeed, with his ramblings and the superficiality of his analysis, he came across as more pathetic than evil.
The more respectful posture of our group that morning led to a more open exchange of views. Before an audience largely composed of Christian clergy, he reminded us that we worship the same God, have been inspired by many of the same prophets, and share similar values of peace, justice, and reconciliation. The Iranian president impressed me as someone sincerely devout in his religious faith, yet rather superficial in his understanding and inclined to twist his faith tradition in ways to correspond with his pre-conceived ideological positions. He was rather evasive when it came to specific questions and was not terribly coherent, relying more on platitudes than analysis, and would tend to get his facts wrong. In short, he reminded me in many respects of our president.
Both Ahmadinejad and George W. Bush have used their fundamentalist interpretations of their faith traditions to place the world in a Manichean perspective of good versus evil. The certitude of their positions regardless of evidence to the contrary, their sense that they are part of a divine mission, and their largely successful manipulation of their devoutly religious constituents have put these two nations on a dangerous confrontational course.
Ahmadinejad can get away with it because he is president of a theocratic political system that allows very limited freedoms and opportunities for public debate. We have no such excuse here in the United States, however, for the strong bipartisan support for Bush’s righteous anti-Iranian crusade, most recently illustrated by a series of provocative anti-Iranian measures recently passed by an overwhelming margin of the Democratic-controlled Congress.
There are many differences between the two men, of course. Perhaps the most significant is that, unlike George W. Bush, Ahmadinejad has very little political power, particularly in the areas of military and foreign policy. So why, given Ahmadinejad’s lack of real political power, was so much made of his annual trip to the opening session of the UN General Assembly?
Ahmadinejad’s Political Weakness
The president of Iran is constitutionally weak. The real power in Iran lies in the hands of Ayatollah Khamenei and other conservative Shiite clerics on the Council of Guardians. Just as they were able to stifle the reformist agenda of Ahmadinejad’s immediate predecessor Mohammed Khatami, they have similarly thwarted the radical agenda of the current president, whom they view as something of a loose cannon. The rest.
|
|
|
|
Post by HABsurd on Oct 10, 2007 14:24:00 GMT -5
I wonder if HA has pressed the animals from his backyard into service. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071902453_3.htmlFrom the BBC translators, an editorial by Saleh Eskandari headlined " spying squirrels," published July 10 by the Iranian newspaper Resalat. "A few weeks ago, 14 squirrels equipped with espionage systems of foreign intelligence services were captured by [Iranian] intelligence forces along the country's borders. These trained squirrels, each of which weighed just over 700 grams, were released on the borders of the country for intelligence and espionage purposes. According to the announcement made by Iranian intelligence officials, alert police officials caught these squirrels before they could carry out any task. "Fixing GPS devices, bugging instruments and advanced cameras in the bodies of trained animals like squirrels, mice, hamsters, etc, are among modern methods of collecting intelligence. Given the fast speed and the special physical features of these animals, they provide special capabilities for spying operations. Once the animals return to their place of origin, the intelligence gathered by them is then offloaded. . . ." www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/700790626814 Spy Squirrels In Iranian Custody July 14, 2007 3:38 p.m. EST Tomasz Filipczak - AHN Jerusalem, Israel (AHN) -- Iranian authorities have recently arrested more than a dozen squirrels for espionage. "In recent weeks, intelligence operatives have arrested 14 squirrels within Iran's borders," state-sponsored news agency IRNA reported. "The squirrels were carrying spy gear of foreign agencies, and were stopped before they could act, thanks to the alertness of our intelligence services." Iran claims the rodents were being used by Western powers in an attempt to undermine the Islamic Republic. Iranian police commander Esmaeil Ahmadi-Moqadam confirmed the report, saying that a number of squirrels had been caught bearing foreign spy gear within Iran's borders. The rodents were taken into custody 2 weeks ago but few details have emerged about the incident. "I have heard about it, but I do not have precise information," said the police commander. Iran has recently stepped up its anti-espionage efforts against the West. There have been no other documented uses of rodents in the past. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 10, 2007 16:37:26 GMT -5
The story according to Glenn Beck. Iran votesI think he misses the mark WRT the Iraq/Oil connection. Winston Churchill's grandson gives a very good opinion. Might try to pick up his book. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 10, 2007 16:45:02 GMT -5
"Mr Bush it's not what you are thinking but are you thinking at all?"I remember PTH starting a thread, "Exit Strategy Iran." Or something like that. Declaration of War with IranTo be fair, I'm not sure just how old this is. Just found it surfing YouTube. Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 10, 2007 17:02:54 GMT -5
Keith Olberman....pfft. With the real comedians (Colbert/Stewert) drawing huge political audiences, if he does not burb even more vehimently, who is going to hear him. He should stick to sports whinnings. |
|
|
|
Post by habmeister on Oct 10, 2007 17:24:02 GMT -5
i saw the best documentary i've ever seen and it was on usa's terrorism er interrogation against iraq/afghanistan last night. ridiculous that they're holding thousands and thousands of prisoners with no trial and 90%+ look to be completely innocent of anything. apparently the geneva convention doesn't apply to the US of A. better than farenheit and control room. if it comes to your town see it. Taxi to the Dark Side (2007) imdb.com/title/tt0854678/An in-depth look at the torture practices of the United States in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, focusing on an innocent taxi driver in Afghanistan who was tortured and killed in 2002. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 11, 2007 18:08:16 GMT -5
The story according to Glenn Beck. Iran votesI think he misses the mark WRT the Iraq/Oil connection. Winston Churchill's grandson gives a very good opinion. Might try to pick up his book. Cheers. Dis, Do you watch Glenn Beck often? I sent him an e-mail with a description of Al Gore. Apparently he loved the "name" so much, he is doing an entire spot around it. algorophobia: the fear of politicians who use pseudo science to create mass hysteria and gain power.Sadly, I will go to my grave and no one will ever know my occasional spasms of brilliance. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Oct 11, 2007 21:03:17 GMT -5
How about an Algorhythm: the speech cadence used by politicians to hypnotize the population into believing said pseudo-science.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Oct 12, 2007 7:24:30 GMT -5
File this under "Everyone's a comedien":
Algorlagnia: a perversion characterized by pleasure and gratification in inflicting pain on others to follow said psuedo-science while you continue on living contrary to the pseudo-science
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 12, 2007 8:00:35 GMT -5
The story according to Glenn Beck. Iran votesI think he misses the mark WRT the Iraq/Oil connection. Winston Churchill's grandson gives a very good opinion. Might try to pick up his book. Cheers. Dis, Do you watch Glenn Beck often? I sent him an e-mail with a description of Al Gore. Apparently he loved the "name" so much, he is doing an entire spot around it. algorophobia: the fear of politicians who use pseudo science to create mass hysteria and gain power.Sadly, I will go to my grave and no one will ever know my occasional spasms of brilliance. Well, if he replied to you saying this I think he may end up giving you some credit over the air, HA. Did he say when he'd be using this? I try to watch him when I can, but don't always have the time. One other thing, if he does do an entire spot around it we should be able to pick it up on YouTube very soon after. Well done! As an aside, I heard on the radio that Gore is sharing a Nobel Peace Prize for his work. I guess his work on enlightening people to the environment is getting noticed big time. Can't say I agree with all of his conclusions but he seems to be making a difference. At least others seem to think so. Cheers. |
|
Why not just say Cheney supporters? 
