Was Romney right?

An interesting review of a debate featured in a new book ,The USA and The New World Order, which ties Iran into an anti-Israel and anti-Western sphere which includes Russia and its satellites as well as China and others:

Review and comments by Cliff Kincaid March 3, 2015

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits Washington and speaks to Congress, bypassing the Obama administration, the stakes could not be higher. But President Obama is not the only, and certainly not the most significant, opponent of Israel. The important new book, “The USA and The New World Order,” features a debate in which one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s key advisers, Alexander Dugin, criticizes Israel’s “imperialist” role in the Middle East and America’s role in the world as a whole.

A careful reading of this important debate, which occurred in 2011 and has recently been published in book form, demonstrates that it is Russia which is the main threat to Israel and the United States.

Dugin’s debate opponent, the anti-communist Brazilian writer and philosopher Olavo de Carvalho, sees Dugin as the brains behind Putin’s geopolitical strategy that embraces “genocidal violence.” He notes that Dugin has “advocated the systematic killing of Ukrainians—a people who, according to him, do not belong to the human species.”

As for Israel, the debate transcript shows that Dugin regards the Jewish state as “a modern capitalist and Atlantist entity and an ally of American imperialism.” This is a rather straightforward view of how the Moscow regime views Israel today, and why it backs the government of Iran with weapons, nuclear technology, and diplomatic support.

The term “Atlantist” or “Atlanticist” is meant to refer to trans-Atlantic cooperation between Europe, the United States and Canada in defense and other areas.

Iran is a key part of the anti-American alliance. Dugin has explained in the article, “Eurasianism, Iran, and Russia’s Foreign Policy,” that a “strategic alliance” exists between Iran and Russia, and Russia “will not cease its efforts to reduce sanctions against Iran” over its support for terrorism and pursuit of nuclear weapons.

In the debate with de Carvalho, Dugin proclaims, “I have nothing against Israel,” then quickly added, “but its cruelty in repressing the Palestinians is evident.”

To which de Carvalho counters, “The rockets that the Palestinians fire practically every day at non-military areas of Israel are never reported by the international big media, whereas any raid by Israel against Palestinian military installations always provokes the greatest outcry all over the world.”

He tells Dugin, “I know the facts, my friend. I know the dose of violence on both sides. I know, for instance, that the Israelis never use human shields, while the Palestinians almost always do it. I know that, in Israel, Muslims have civil rights and are protected by the police, while, in countries under Islamic rule, non-Muslims are treated as dogs and often stoned to death.”

This exchange is only part of a debate that puts Israel in the context of a global conflict that Dugin sees as “The West against the rest.” The world is going through a “global transition,” away from dominance by the U.S. and its allies, he asserts.

De Carvalho commented that Dugin, himself the son of a KGB officer, is “the political mentor of a man [Vladimir Putin] who is the very incarnation of the KGB.” He said that Dugin has emerged as “the creator and guide of one of the widest and most ambitious geopolitical plans of all time—a plan adopted and followed as closely as possible by a nation which has the largest army in the world, the most efficient and daring secret service and a network of alliances that stretches itself through four continents.”

De Carvalho describes Eurasianism as “a synthesis of the defunct USSR and the Tzarist Empire” that includes philosophical elements of Marxism-Leninism, Russian Messianism, Nazism, and esotericism. The last element is a reference to certain occult influences in Russia.

“In order to fulfill his plans,” de Carvalho explains, “he counts on Vladimir Putin’s strong arm, the armies of Russia and China and every terrorist organization of the Middle East, not to mention practically every leftist, fascist and neo-Nazi movements which today place themselves under the banner of his ‘Eurasian’ project.”

He says the historical roles played by Russia and China in sponsoring and arming terrorist groups help explain why global Islam has targeted the United States and Israel. “Some theoreticians of the Caliphate allege that socialism, once triumphant in the world, will need a soul, and Islam will provide it with one,” he notes.

In this global war for domination, however, he also identifies a “globalist elite,” including in the U.S. Government and society, which wants to destroy traditional Christianity and share in “the spoils” from the decaying West.

What we are witnessing, he writes, is an “alliance of Russia with China and the Islamic countries, as well as with part of Western Europe,” that has come together in a “total war against the United States and Israel,” which is to be followed by “the establishment of a worldwide dictatorship.” It is the replacement of an “Atlanticist Order” by the “Eurasian Order.”

For those who doubt such global schemes could come to pass, de Carvalho says that Dugin “is not a dreamer, a macabre poet creating imaginary hecatombs in a dark dungeon infested with rats.” Rather, he is “the mentor of the Putin government and the brains behind Russian foreign policy,” whose ideas “have long ceased to be mere speculations.”

De Carvalho identifies among these “material incarnations” of the Dugin vision the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a group founded by Russia, China, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, which “intends to be the center of a restructuring of military power in the world.” Iran has been an observer state at the SCO since 2005. He also cites the Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis, a geopolitical term for countries which are seen as developing a mechanism to replace NATO, the one-time anti-communist alliance.

Another such international organization is the BRICS alliance of nations, incorporating Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. Iran is also discussing joining BRICS.

On January 20, Iran and Russia signed an agreement expanding their military ties. Russian defense minister Sergei Shoigu said Moscow wants to develop a “long-term and multifaceted” military relationship with Iran. Just a few days ago Russia offered to sell the Antey-2500 anti- aircraft and ballistic missile system to Iran. “The United States and Israel lobbied Russia to block the missile sale, saying it could be used to shield Iran’s nuclear facilities from possible future air strikes,” Reuters reported.

For its part, the government of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has been warning about Iran while simultaneously conducting cordial relations with Russia and refusing to condemn Putin for invading Ukraine. Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman says Israel will maintain “neutrality” in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. “Maintenance of good relations with Russia is a priority moment for Israel and its principal stance,” Lieberman said.

It has been estimated that more than 6,000 people have died in eastern Ukraine since Russia’s invasion of the country. The Obama administration has refused to supply Ukraine with weapons for its own self-defense.

"But President Obama is not the only, and certainly not the most significant, opponent of Israel."

I got sort of lost here.

I got sort of lost here.

I'm sure you can find your way back. That was an opinion of the reviewer not of Carvallo in his debate with Dugin. Go ahead . . . be brave and find your way back to the thread and get into the meat of what Carvallo had to say.

In response to Netanyahu's speech, Obama, among other things, said that sanctions have not worked in forcing Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons aspirations.

Yet, he seems to believe that sanctions, if the ante is constantly raised, would stop Russia's aggression in Ukraine. There seems to be a misunderstanding about the world views of Iran, Russia, and the Islamic Middle East, especially of the so called "radical" Islamists. There is this total disregard of the mindset of what Alexander Dugin calls Eurasia and Islamism. Our policies toward these "civilizations," as Dugin refers to them, approaches them as if they think about international relations in the same way the West does. And we don't recognize their expansionist desire to achieve a share of world power . . . even dominance.

We discount, publically, the relations they have formed with each other to form a different geopolitics than that which informs our "negotiations" with them. And, because we apparently trust that they will respond honestly to agreements we make with them, they can roll us and, if not openly but on the sly, do as they wish. So the relations and agreements they form with each other make them stronger against our sanctions and negotiations. And our insistence that they conform to our requests, "or else," further drives them into cooperation with each other, possibly creating a formidable opponent which is comprised of anti-Western "civilizations" that see us as a threat which must be defeated.

What is more disturbing is the growing influence in their leadership of a desire to have a decisive total war against us. Maybe Obama does understand that, and he is willing to let them have their way in hopes that they will leave us alone--that elusive "peace in our time."

The majority of Iranians do not hate America or Israel. It's a shame we didn't do more to help the people there form of democracy back in 2009 when they were trying so hard. Missed opportunities and poor or lack of decision making has really hurt this country.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The majority of Iranians do not hate America or Israel.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I assume you personally did a door to door consensus?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I assume you personally did a door to door consensus?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No I've been too busy with the charter 2 fish thread.
So I take it you believe different?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No I've been too busy with the charter 2 fish thread.
So I take it you believe different?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I believe there is no truely accurate statement and to make one in a formulated rebuttal is preposterous, but i figured i would give you the benefit just in case you had the oppertunity, and i would love to see the data.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I believe there is no truely accurate statement and to make one in a formulated rebuttal is preposterous, but i figured i would give you the benefit just in case you had the oppertunity, and i would love to see the data.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I believe it's true from what I've read and listening to members of the opposition party . The relatively few in power are the problem. For us and for them
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The majority of Iranians do not hate America or Israel..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That was pretty much my understanding also.

That was pretty much my understanding also.

Is it pretty much your understanding also that back in 2009 "Missed opportunities and poor or lack of decision making has really hurt this country"?

If the majority of Iranians need our help to remove the mullah command and control of Iran, then the mullah's power obviously does not need the majority opinion. As is usually the case in international wars, it is not the people of the countries that is to be feared as much as their leadership.

I think this is the 1st time in months that I have read one of your posts. I think missed opportunities and poor decision making have hurt us there for many years prior to 2009.

I think this is the 1st time in months that I have read one of your posts. I think missed opportunities and poor decision making have hurt us there for many years prior to 2009.

Since your agreeing with Buckman, I asked about his assertion about 2009, not about many years before.

Another post I've read.

Did I agree with the whole post or did I quote only part of his statement? If you want info. about his assertion, why wouldn't you ask him? I wouldn't know what he was thinking.

Another post I've read.

Did I agree with the whole post or did I quote only part of his statement? If you want info. about his assertion, why wouldn't you ask him? I wouldn't know what he was thinking.

What he was thinking was explicitly expressed by him. I didn't have to ask him.

Since you agreed with a part of his post, I wondered if you agreed with his whole post since he tied it all together. Since, as you explicitly say, you "think missed opportunities and poor decision making have hurt us there for many years prior to 2009." I wonder if you agree with Buckman that those missed opportunities and poor decisions also occurred in 2009.

So why would you post only your opinion of decisions and opportunities before 2009?

.

Since you agreed with a part of his post, I wondered if you agreed with his whole post since he tied it all together.

If I agreed with the whole post, wouldn't I have quoted the whole post?

You must be fun at parties:)

The majority of Iranians do not hate America or Israel. It's a shame we didn't do more to help the people there form of democracy back in 2009 when they were trying so hard. Missed opportunities and poor or lack of decision making has really hurt this country.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I've read that the religious demographic distribution in Iran is similar to the US actually in terms of conviction.

It always seems to be a shame when Obama didn't wave his magic want and make impossible situations perfect doesn't it?

The Green movement didn't have the momentum to really take shape. It's unfortunate but it's also reality. Don't ignore the history of the US meddling in Iranian affairs, we seem to have forgotten it but they haven't.

If I agreed with the whole post, wouldn't I have quoted the whole post?

I don't know. That's why I asked. And since you won't answer, I'll assume that you believe the missed opportunities and actions did occur in 2009. And that they are still occurring.

You must be fun at parties:)

What is it with you and parties?

I've read that the religious demographic distribution in Iran is similar to the US actually in terms of conviction.

Interesting. Since you read it, I guess there must be no doubt that it is "true." But if similar in terms of conviction means the majority profess a religion but don't fervently adhere or practice its most "extreme" tenets, isn't there an important difference compared to the US. Somehow, we not only don't translate those most extreme convictions into government, our government here does not enforce the practice of religion at all. We are, however, sliding to more dictatorial government in other respects, therefor becoming more similar to Iran in that way, but we still have a way to go. Not such a long way in terms of what we are progressively giving the government power to do--that is happening rapidly. But the government, as yet, isn't fully actuating the total the power it is grabbing. But, given time, and complacency, who knows? There's that old (so probably no longer applies) "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."

It always seems to be a shame when Obama didn't wave his magic want and make impossible situations perfect doesn't it?

Well, since that's what magic wants are for, why doesn't he wave it? Didn't all our other emperor presidents do it? Anyway, if the situation is impossible, why does he pretend to be waving his want? Does the emperor want some clothes?

The Green movement didn't have the momentum to really take shape. It's unfortunate but it's also reality.

Spence, since you are so busy in your work and home life, I don't think you have time to pay attention to how things, vacillating momentums, have been taking place/shape. The green movement has shaped quite a bit. And it is by no means through. If you read the Copenhagen Accords on climate change, you might get some inkling of where we are heading. The Progressive movement is far from dead. The "green" aspect is just a part of its solution and methodology for creating a united world with equal distribution of all resources and the ensuing rationalization and total governance of humanity, as well as of nature itself.

The Progressives may suffer little losses now and then, but they never give up. And whatever means necessary, including the Green movement, are at their disposal.

In fact, it is countries like Iran, far more so than the US, who stand in the way of the Progressive movement and its Greenies.

Don't ignore the history of the US meddling in Iranian affairs,

Of course, we are supposed to ignore their meddling in ours.

we seem to have forgotten it but they haven't.

Nor have Russia or other "enemies" in the Middle East. If you had not got lost early in my post at the beginning of this thread, you would have seen that we haven't forgotten it, and that their "not forgetting," but even translating it into misrepresentation, is a unifying force for getting them together in opposition to us, to Israel, and to what is left of the "West." Obama's pretending to wave his magic want at the threat to us, while realizing that the "situation" is supposedly impossible, seems to be theater to appease them. With the realization that they will, with or without his approval, eventually have their way. I wouldn't be surprised, if he actually thinks that far ahead, that he sees their inevitable coalescence to be their own demise. After they have had their little anti-West party, they will see that they really don't agree with each other and will destroy one another in their own petty conflagrations. That will make it easier for the Progressive unification of the World. And the Greenies will have their place at the table.

I. Don't ignore the history of the US meddling in Iranian affairs, we seem to have forgotten it but they haven't.

Pretty ironic statement considering the rediculus deal being worked out by your hero
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pretty ironic statement considering the rediculus deal being worked out by your hero
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Right.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pretty ironic statement considering the rediculus deal being worked out by your hero
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Do you know anything about the deal?

Do you know anything about the deal?

I do but of course I'm a tad bit more cynical of it then I imagine you are . But I'm in good company .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I do but of course I'm a tad bit more cynical of it then I imagine you are . But I'm in good company .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So how would you make it better?

Caveat, must have a chance of succeeding.

So how would you make it better?

Caveat, must have a chance of succeeding.

I believe we have hand in this .
Congress is moving on stronger sactions . They are working
The deal is a win for Iran . Sanctions reduced and long term plans for a nuclear weapon granted. Is that what you mean by succeed?
He's kicking a very dangerous can down the road .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So how would you make it better?

Better in what way and for whom? Better for the U.S.? Be strong and back it up. Enforce "red lines" or don't have them. Say what you mean and mean what you say. Don't break promises. Build confidence, in yourself and in others. Bolster our allies confidence that they can depend on us walking our talk. Use our influence to persuade the Europeans and Atlantic rim allies that times are dangerous and they must strengthen their military and unite in standing firm on their values. And to not back down, one inch, from Russian aggression against those who wish to join them--i.e., Ukraine. And to encourage their people to love and defend their culture against those from within and those who wish them harm from without. Use the lessons of history. Nations who became weak and corrupt from within became victims to aggression from those who did not fear them. Nations who wished to maintain or expand, developed military strength and virtue (from middle English vertu, meaning strength or manliness, with excellence, courage, morality and integrity.) A strong, consistent, incorruptible character facing bullies whose populace admire us more than their own governments, would make our enemies fear not only us, but their own people, and make them not only easily defeatable, but susceptible for crumbling from within.

We should become more Reaganesque in the face of those who wish us harm. And we should quit throwing money away at the federal level on things that the central government was not meant to control, driving it into unsustainable debt, and spend more on military power as it was intended for it to control. And we should unleash the private economy by massively reducing federal regulations. We should return to our people the belief that they have the major say in government by giving them the confidence that their votes in state elections are allowed to stand and determine policy instead of the federal government fighting against those elections and having politically appointed judges overturning the will of the people and their vote on things which were meant to be state and individual prerogative, not federal domain. And the federal representatives who run on the promises that get them elected should fulfill those promises to show the people that they actually do represent them and are their servants, not their masters. Return power to the people which the federal government has stolen from them, thus instilling in them the pride, interest, motivation, and virtue to contribute to the strength of the country rather than being passive dependents.

That would be a start.

Caveat, must have a chance of succeeding.

Succeed in what way and for whom? Success for us is maintaining, or getting back, our strength and freedom. What success for Iran would be, probably, is what they may well get from the "negotiations." Maybe something as paltry and potentially destructive, to them and the world, as getting nuclear weapons.

An addition to a start to "make it better" in the above post, the federal government should let private companies develop wind energy on their own and stop providing them public money (the unconstitutional picking winners and losers thing). And it should make the production of oil in the U.S. more profitable by lowering tax and unnecessary regulations. The anti-oil ban on federal lands should mostly be removed. There is no good reason, in the first place, that the federal government should own over 40% of the land in the U.S. The states would manage their own land better and more productively than the federal government does. The states even manage State parks better than the federal government manages National parks.

If we are in an economic and cultural war which threatens to break out into total war with enemies who mostly depend on oil for revenue, restricting our oil production makes them stronger. It has just been proven that releasing larger oil production here threatens the wealth, therefor the power, of our oil producing enemies.

Adding that to the above post recommendations would give us a bigger bargaining chip in the supposed "negotiations" we have with untrustworthy, unscrupulous, adversaries.

The other Green movement.

And then read this...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/netanyahu-enters-never-never-land/2015/03/05/2f279c3c-c372-11e4-ad5c-3b8ce89f1b89_story.html?hpid=z2

The other Green movement.

And then read this...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/netanyahu-enters-never-never-land/2015/03/05/2f279c3c-c372-11e4-ad5c-3b8ce89f1b89_story.html?hpid=z2

Zakaria!?! really? You read that left wing hack.

Were supposed to believe that Iran was willing to be nice-nice, but Bush (yeah Bush did it) tried to scare it. So, instead of doing the right "practical" thing, it went bonkers and became an evil anti-American kookoo intent on nuclear annihilation of Israel. Really? It flipped from being "practical" to being insane? Just to spite Bush?

Why on earth was it necessary for Bush to scare such a nice little country which only wanted to do the right thing?

Oh yeah, it was a bit more complicated than that. It wasn't only Bush. There were the IAEA, Russia, EU, and others as well. But, of course, Bush controlled them all. God, his legacy grows. He scared ALL of them?

And, my gosh, 2005 was a long time ago. There were 10 years, six of them after Bush was gone, that it could have come to its senses. There were 10 years of continuous IAEA inspections where he was not in compliance and "Iran went from 164 centrifuges to 19,000, accumulated more than 17,000 pounds of enriched uranium gas and ramped up construction of a heavy water reactor at Arak that could be used to produce weapons-grade plutonium."

Just to spite Bush!

If all it really, REALLY wanted was peaceful use of nuclear power and friendly relations with its neighbors, was that so difficult? Really? Was it necessary to go from a nice, practical, sensible, cooperative, little country to an insane ogre? Just to spite Bush?

It went from 164 centrifuges to 19,000, etc. just to spite Bush? It supports terrorism and vows to exterminate Israel just to spite Bush. Would it be that difficult to recognize Israel as a state with a right to exist?

If we are to believe that it doesn't want nuclear weapons, why would Zakaria be concerned with all the centrifuges and enriched uranium and heavy water? Hey, the wicked Bush is gone. What's the problem? Why are there negotiations?

And if by Bush trying to "scare" it, Iran erupted from being limited to 164 centrifuges, and being 10 years away from producing a bomb to only months of doing so, what's the point of negotiating an agreement that says if it refrains from making the bomb for another 10 years it would after that no longer be held to the agreement? What, if it has lied all along, would keep it from lying and getting the bomb now rather than another 10 years on top of the 10 years that it was sticking it, out of spite, to Bush? To spite Obama for 10 years?

Oh, yeah, Netanyahu was in never-never land. I wonder if Iran had for the past ten years been calling Zakaria something evil that needed to be exterminated, and had kept Hezbollah throwing bombs his way, and vowed that if he ever came within 10 miles of its borders, it would burn him to a crisp, would Zakaria feel comfortable to visit Iran if Obama got it to sign a paper that it would leave him alone?

Zakaria is a la-la left-wing Islam apologist hack. His writing is usually heavily slanted . . . and stupid.

That's it? Blame the messenger?

He doesn't claim Iran scaled their capacity to spite Bush, they did it because they had no reason not to. Had the deal been made it likely would have been different.

What about the facts in the story? How about Netenyahu's repeated claims of impending doom?

That's it? Blame the messenger?

What did I blame Zakaria for? Annoying me? I think I am allowed to be annoyed.

He doesn't claim Iran scaled their capacity to spite Bush, they did it because they had no reason not to. Had the deal been made it likely would have been different.

He said that Iran's scaling was a "result" of Bush's failure to give Iran what it wanted, not that it had no reason not to. If Iran's intention was never to develop the "bomb" as it has always claimed, then it never had a reason not to "scale" their capacity. Bush or no Bush.

Then he tries to make a seemingly irrefutable claim that if Bush had not vetoed Iran's offer things would be different today. That Iran would not be months away from making the bomb. Or wait, he did modify that with "likely."

How likely? Well, Zakaria doesn't mention what Obama's spokesmouth referred to in 2010 as "Iran's repeated failure to live up to its own commitments" He doesn't mention deals made and broken after Bush was gone. Not the 2009 deal to have Russia enrich its stock which Iran backed out of. Not the 2010 similar deal with Turkey and Brazil which the Obama administration rejected. Not the timeline of Iran's consistently not complying with the IAEA's demands followed by the "international community" gradually caving in toward Iran's desires: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/11/24/history-lesson-10-years-of-negotiating-positions-between-iran-and-world-powers/

And during it all, without any pressure by Bush, but by pressures and broken negotiations with everybody else, Iran, according to Zakaria, is months away from the bomb. But, somehow, we're supposed to believe that it was all Bush's fault for not agreeing to the 2002-05 deal. That if he had agreed, it would be "likely" that Iran would not be months away from the bomb.

Who is it, exactly, that is in never-never land?

What about the facts in the story? How about Netenyahu's repeated claims of impending doom?

What facts? The assertion of something being "likely"?

I can understand, very well, Netenyahu's concern over Iran's threat to annihilate Israel. And the reality of being able to achieve that threat with a nuclear weapon.

If Iran is telling the truth, that it wants nuclear power only for peaceful uses, not nuclear weapons, then there is no point to the incessant back and forth attempts at negotiations to restrict or allow Iran's capacities. Nor is there a need for Zakaria to be concerned about Iran's ability to have the bomb in a matter of months.

If Iran is not telling the truth, if it really does want the nuclear capability of building the bomb, and had that desire all along, AS MOST EVERYONE ELSE ASSUMES TO BE THE CASE . . . if Iran is lying, then asserting that if Bush, way back when, had agreed to some deal we would not "likely" be at a point where Iran was month's away from that bomb, is, as Zakaria puts it, never-never land

What about the facts in the story? How about Netenyahu's repeated claims of impending doom?

Spence, the story by Zakaria was clearly a hit job against Bush, Netanyahu, and the West in general. Nuclear nonproliferation has been a U.N. policy since the 1960's. The IAEA was established by the U.N. in 1957 and specified in 1968 to ensure no expansion of nuclear programs designed to create nuclear weapons. This was all well Before Bush.

Iran, under the Shah, had started a nuclear program which was for energy purposes only. It hired outside Western contractors to build it. They operated under IAEA regulations. There was no secrecy, no attempt to build nuclear weapons, no hidden violations. After the revolution, under control of an Islamic State, the nuclear program, which had been discontinued during the war with Iraq, was restarted, but this time strictly under control of Iran, with Iranian contractors to design and build it. There were, very shortly, IAEA concerns about the ultimate purpose.

And the agents who came to Iran's aid this time were not from the West, but from Eurasia. Russia and China, mainly. And IAEA suspicions gradually heightened. For example, China agreed to prevent new cooperation and halt existing projects with Iran in the nuclear field, and to cancel a project to help Iran with a blueprint for the plant. But China continued its aid anyway. Iran, in Nov. 2003, entered into an agreement with Britain, France, and Germany to suspend enrichment, but it continued building the centrifuges anyway. And it has continually advanced enrichment, before, through, and past the Bush era to its present ability. Iran has refused to have its program of enrichment done by outside commercial sources with no political objective, as was done by the Shah, but maintains its own program, in constant secrecy, violation of agreements, and uncooperativeness with IAEA. Even Obama says that if there are no guarantees that Iran will not build nuclear weapons, we will walk away from the negotiation. Long after Bush, there are still no guarantees. If Iran simply wanted peaceful use of nuclear power, it could have gone about it the way the Shah did. Something else is obviously going on, and Bush didn't cause it. And at this point at which Iran is about to have the ability to build the bomb, any "agreement" would be highly suspect, and its "guarantee" by a regime which has continuously broken agreements may not be worth the paper it's written on.

Your query to me to talk about the facts of Zakaria's story is amusing. You often dismiss "stories," simply by sneering at the source, and avoid any further discussion. Which you did with the article that is the subject of this thread. You claimed to get "lost" by one of the initial sentences (which I pointed out was not relevant to the rest of the review), and that was that. No further discussion. No "what about the facts in the story?" At least I expanded my discussion of Zakaria's hit job.

I don't know if you actually did go ahead and read the rest of the article I posted. If you did, you might have seen and discussed what are and have been growing alliances that are not wholly, if at all, interested in alliance with what we call the "West." They, in varying degrees among its participants, actually tend to be anti-Western. And the alliances, including SOC and BRICS comprise half the population of the planet.

The article certainly sheds some light on what is actually happening in Ukraine. And why economic sanctions have had little effect. The alliances afford partners to ameliorate the effects of U.S. or European opposition and sanction. They want to neutralize the power of the West. And to replace the dollar as the go-to currency with their own currency. They see Israel as an extension of Western power into their Eurasian sphere, so tend to back Iran and care little for Israel's security. Iran wants to be part of their alliance, and they will eventually officially accept it, but will back it for the time being. Here's the Wiki entry for SOC and BRIC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS

The SOC, Shanghai Cooperation Organization is strictly Eurasian and won't allow European countries or the U.S. entry. The U.S. had applied for observer status but was denied. Russia and China are the most important members.

The BRICS expands from Eurasia to include the African and South American sphere, but its main members, Russia, China, and India, are Eurasian.

There are many "observer" nations who attend SOC and BRICS conferences, most being potential members and will be wholeheartedly welcomed into the alliance. If numbers and statistics mean much, the combined alliances will have a much larger population than a U.S./Euro alliance.

Interesting how wagons are circling around the U.S./Euro zone, no? How Russia and China are quietly expanding their influence in the rest of the world? And they already have a powerful influence among our own alliances by being two of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.

I transferred this out of the Hillary email thread to a more appropriate one:

There certainly is a mega shift in global power but I wouldn't have faith that a BRIC alliance is going to mean a dramatic reduction in US power. It's mostly economic and dependent on global consumption.

This is what I mean by not paying serious attention to the shifts in global alliances. The shift is occurring not just because of BRICS. The SOC is as or even more influential in the shift. For instance, from Wikipedia:

Iranian writer, Hamid Golpira, had this to say on the topic: "According to Zbigniew Brzezinski's theory, control of the Eurasian landmass is the key to global domination and control of Central Asia is the key to control of the Eurasian landmass....Russia and China have been paying attention to Brzezinski's theory, since they formed the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation [SOC] in 2001, ostensibly to curb extremism in the region and enhance border security, but most probably with the real objective of counterbalancing the activities of the United States and NATO in Central Asia".

But the counterbalancing involves more than Central Asia. It includes the Middle East, and altogether what Russian theorists call Eurasia. Turkey will probably become a member of SOC, and Iran will, when the lifting of sanctions allows it.

And BRICS is a channel for SOC nations, especially Russia and China, to create a counterbalance outside of Eurasia by incorporating "developing nations" outside the Eurasian zone, including South America and Africa.

An aim of both SOC And BRICS is to replace the dollar as the reserve currency in global trade finance. BRICS ministers supported Putin against any Western notion of banning Russia from the G20 because of the invasion and annexation of Crimea. BRICS and SOC establish a system of swaps allowing transfers of resources between member nations. These alliances will form a counterbalance to NATO and other strictly Western alliances, and as their membership increases, the probability that they can achieve dominance increases.

Consider, as well, that most of the SOC and BRICS members are members of the UN, and Russia and China are permanent members of the security council. So their influence goes well beyond SOC and BRICS. It is worldwide, including socialist minded fellow travelers inside Western countries.

There also doesn't seem to be agreement on what Iran really is doing. The former head of Mossad called Bibi's claims before Congress to be b*llsh*t. Even our own intel agencies haven't consistently said there's an active program to develop a bomb going on.

With aggressive inspection I'd say we're better prepared to know what's real even with attempts to deceive. Saddam 2.0.

Talk about b*llsh*t, if there is no active program to develop a bomb, what is the reason, or even the right, to impose anything on Iran. If we need aggressive inspection merely to know what appears to be the case, no active program, what is the probable cause for the agression?

With no deal they have no respite from sanctions, the natural response will be escalate and provoke to get the deal. This leads to a bomb.

Well then, Bibi's suposed b*llsh*t isn't so sh*tty. Without a deal, you say it leads to a bomb. I suppose it's the nature of the deal that concerns Bibi.

No, it simply follows the clear logic set forth above.

No, your logic is too loaded with contingencies and so more muddy than clear: "If the Senators don't want the deal and no deal is more likely to get them a bomb, then that could be a possible conclusion." And the extremely remote possibility is extremely improbable, and suggesting that the Senators want Iran to get the bomb is absurd on its face.

In the vast realm of possible conclusions, that would be one of the most unlikely. Actually it's silly, and that you try it makes you appear to be grasping at straws.

Actually it's a reasonable proposition, not a conclusion--"getting a deal could eventually make it easier for Iran to openly get the bomb. A deal could lift the sanctions and allow Iran to join the expanding Russia/China coalitions." Once it becomes a member of the alliance, it will have the backing of the members against foreign intrusions into its business, just as NATO is supposed to back its members.


Given the short-sighted behavior -- now being regretted by their own party -- I wonder why they would do such a silly thing. That it comes on the heels of Bibi's surreal appearance is even more strange.

Gosh, I guess you have to load your comment with defamatory insinuations, short-sighted, silly, surreal, strange, in order to give it the "appearance" of validity.

Quote:
"But President Obama is not the only, and certainly not the most significant, opponent of Israel."


I got sort of lost here.

Maybe this article can help you to find your way:

http://carolineglick.com/israels-next-22-months/

Apparently, saying that Obama is an opponent of Israel is not so astounding or shocking that it should make you lose your way.

Hope you can find your way through this article.

There seems to be a misunderstanding about the world views of Iran, Russia, and the Islamic Middle East, especially of the so called "radical" Islamists. There is this total disregard of the mindset of what Alexander Dugin calls Eurasia and Islamism. Our policies . . . approaches them as if they think about international relations in the same way the West does. And we don't recognize their expansionist desire to achieve a share of world power . . . even dominance.



The following article by Raymond Ibrahim points out the need to understand the motives of Islamists in the same way they understand them. And when we impute our secular Western understanding to what they practice and believe, we will entirely miss the point. And we will be at an insurmountable disadvantage if we "negotiate," for instance, with an Islamic state such as Iran if we believe that the terms and obligations of an agreement are looked at by them in the same way we do . . . :

CIA Projects Western Motives onto the Islamic Jihad

Raymond Ibrahim | Thursday Mar 19, 2015 12:01 AM


By constantly projecting Western standards on Islamic jihadis, CIA head John Brennan has come to epitomize the U.S. intelligence community’s intellectual failures concerning the true sources of the jihad.

Last Friday, March 13, Brennan insisted that Islamic State (IS) members are not Islamic. Instead, “They are terrorists, they’re criminals. Most—many—of them are psychopathic thugs, murderers who use a religious concept and masquerade and mask themselves in that religious construct.”

Note his usage of terms familiar to Western people (“terrorists,” “criminals,” etc.). Islamic State jihadis may be all those things—including “psychopathic thugs”—from a Western paradigm, but the fact left out by Brennan is that, according to Islamic law and history, savage and psychopathic behavior is permissible, especially in the context of the jihad.

But perhaps Brennan knows all this and is simply being “strategic”? After all, the CIA head also “warned against ascribing ‘Islamic legitimacy’ to the overseas terrorist group, saying that allowing them to identify themselves with Islam does a disservice to Muslims around the world.”

Brennan of course is following Barack Obama’s lead; a month earlier the president said:

"We must never accept the premise that they [Islamic State] put forward, because it is a lie, nor should we grant these terrorists the religious legitimacy that they seek. They are not religious leaders, they are terrorists. And we are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam. "

The problem is that, according to Western norms—built as they are atop Judeo-Christian principles—Islam has been “perverted” from day one. As far back as the 8th century, mere generations after Islam was born, Byzantine chronicler Theophanes wrote in his Chrongraphia:

"He [Islamic prophet Muhammad] taught those who gave ear to him that the one slaying the enemy—or being slain by the enemy—entered into paradise [e.g., Koran 9:111]. And he said paradise was carnal and sensual—orgies of eating, drinking, and women. Also, there was a river of wine … and the woman were of another sort, and the duration of sex greatly prolonged and its pleasure long-enduring" [e.g., Koran 56: 7-40, 78:31, 55:70-77]. And all sorts of other nonsense.

More to the point, every atrocity IS has committed—beheading, crucifying, raping, enslaving, or burning people alive—is legitimate according to Islamic law and the teachings and deeds of Muhammad, that most “perfect” and “moral” man (Koran 33:21, 68:4), as documented here. [see link to article below for linked documentation]

Based on Islamic historical texts, Muhammad sent assassins to slaughter his critics—including poets and one old woman whose body was dismembered by her Muslim assailants; he had an “infidel” tortured to death with fire in order to reveal his tribe’s hidden treasure; he “married” that same man’s wife hours later (the woman, Safiya, later confessed that “Of all men, I hated the prophet the most—for he killed my husband, my brother, and my father”); and he reportedly used to visit and have sex with his nine wives in a single hour. (For more, read “The Perverse Sexual Habits of the Prophet.”)

Again, all this information is based on Islamic texts deemed reliable and regularly quoted by Muslim scholars and theologians—not fabrications by “Islamophobes.”

Even so, the point here is that, whatever the “truth” about Islam, its origins and founder, the premise that Brennan, Obama, etc., constantly put forth—that it would be counterproductive for “us” to confer any Islamic “legitimacy” on groups like the Islamic State—is fatuous at best. As I explained in a 2009 article titled “Words Matter in the War on Terror”:

Muslims are not waiting around for Americans or their government — that is, the misguided, the deluded, in a word, the infidel — to define Islam for them; much less will subtle word games and euphemisms emanating from the West manage to confer or take away Islamic legitimacy on the Islamists of the world. For Muslims, only Islamic law, the antithesis of international law, decides what is or is not legitimate, or in legal terminology, what is mubah or mahrum.

Furthermore, the U.S. government would do well to worry less about which words appease Muslims … and worry more about providing its own citizenry with accurate and meaningful terminology.

Words matter. Whom those words are directed at matters even more. The world’s Muslims aren’t holding their breath to hear what sort of Islamic legitimacy the U.S. government is about to confer on any given Islamist group, since it is not for non-Muslims — the despised infidels — to decide what is and is not Islamic in the first place. Americans, on the other hand, who still wonder “why they hate us,” are in desperate need of understanding. Using accurate terminology is the first step.

Indeed, for all of U.S. leadership’s fear that we “infidels” not “legitimize” the Islamic State, Al Azhar—perhaps the most “legitimate” of all Islamic institutions—refuses to delegitimize the jihadi terrorists. And little wonder, since Al Azhar’s curriculum teaches everything that IS is doing—including burning people alive.

Meanwhile, Brennan whitewashes and praises the jihad. Speaking back in 2010, the politically correct CIA chief said: "Nor do we describe our enemy as 'jihadists' or 'Islamists' because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children."

Inasmuch as he is correct that “jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community”—he greatly errs by again projecting Judeo-Christian notions of what constitutes “holy,” “legitimate,” and “innocent” onto Islam.

Jihad is nothing less than offensive warfare to spread Islamic rule, a cause seen as both “legitimate” and “holy” in Islam. (Read this “moderate” Muslim scholar’s “logic” on the (invisible) differences between jihad and terrorism. [see link to article below for link to this reference]) Moreover, jihadis regularly seek to “purify” their communities by purging them of “infidels” and their influences. As for “innocence,” by simply being a non-Muslim, one is already guilty in Islam. And when Muhammad’s disciples warned him about attacking non-Muslim tribes in the night, since women and children might get killed accidentally, the prophet replied, “They are from among them” and proceeded with the raid.

All this leads to the following question: If the Islamic State and other jihadi organizations are not animated by Islam, then what, according to the CIA chief, is really fueling their jihad? Brennan spelled this out very clearly back in 2010 when he described Islamic terrorists as victims of “political, economic and social forces.”

In other words, the way to defeat the Islamic State is by offering its members better “job opportunities”—as so eloquently expressed by the State Department recently in the person of Mary Harf.

Ironically enough, Brennan’s invocation of “political, economic and social forces” brings to mind the fact that I warned against precisely these three pretexts, and in the same order, in the opening paragraph of my written testimony submitted to the US House of Representatives on February 12, 2009—since removed from their website—a year before Brennan invoked “political, economic and social forces” as the true sources of Islamic jihad.

I close with that opening paragraph as it appears more relevant now than it was over six years ago when I wrote it:

The greatest hurdle Americans need to get over in order to properly respond to the growing threat of radical Islam is purely intellectual in nature; specifically, it is epistemological, and revolves around the abstract realm of ‘knowledge.’ Before attempting to formulate a long-term strategy to counter radical Islam, Americans must first and foremost understand Islam, particularly its laws and doctrines, the same way Muslims understand it—without giving it undue Western (liberal) interpretations. This is apparently not as simple as expected: all peoples of whatever civilizations and religions tend to assume that other peoples more or less share in their worldview, which they assume is objective, including notions of right and wrong, good and bad. …. [T]he secular, Western experience has been such that people respond with violence primarily when they feel they are politically, economically, or socially oppressed. While true that many non-Western peoples may fit into this paradigm, the fact is, the ideologies of radical Islam have the intrinsic capacity to prompt Muslims to violence and intolerance vis-à-vis the ‘other,’ irrespective of grievances…. Being able to understand all this, being able to appreciate it without any conceptual or intellectual constraints is paramount for Americans to truly understand the nature of the enemy and his ultimate goals.

Originally published by FrontPage Magazine


There are several interesting links within the article which give more in-depth explanations which are not linked in the above. Here is a link to the article if you wish to read them: http://humanevents.com/2015/03/19/cia-projects-western-motives-onto-the-islamic-jihad/?utm_source=hedaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

"But President Obama is not the only, and certainly not the most significant, opponent of Israel."

Quote: Spence reply:
"I got sort of lost here."

Sure doesn't sound like Obama supports Israel in this Huffpost article:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/obama-details-his-disappointment-with-netanyahu-in-first-post-election-comments/ar-BBiyd81?ocid=ansnewshp11

Is this sort of being an opponent of Israel?

Sounds more like Obama acting as the wiser older brother.

Sounds more like Obama acting as the wiser older brother.

So the "wiser older brother" got pissed when Netanyahu, in order to "scare" people into voting for him, is reported to have said that “The right-wing government is in danger. Arab voters are heading to the polling stations in droves . . . Left-wing NGOs are bringing them in buses.”

And so then, being pissed, Obama said that statement was "contrary to what is the best of Israel's traditions. That although Israel was founded based on the historic Jewish homeland and the need to have a Jewish homeland, Israeli democracy has been premised on everybody in the country being treated equally and fairly . . . And I think that that is what's best about Israeli democracy. If that is lost, then I think that not only does it give ammunition to folks who don't believe in a Jewish state, but it also I think starts to erode the name of democracy in the country."

If that is a danger to democracy in Israel, why is it not the same danger here in the U.S.? Don't our politicians, certainly Obama supporters do, try to "get out the vote" on election days? And don't they warn that the other side will win and bring about disaster for the country if their own side doesn't vote? In fact, there are "reports" (I know you like and often depend on "reports') that Obama actually sent some of his "expert" community election organizers (included in the Left-wing NGOs Netanyahu spoke of) to help defeat Netanyahu? It would seem, therefor, that what Netanyahu said, contrary to Obama's suggestion, would actually level the playing field and ensure "everybody in the country being treated equally and fairly" would happen.

Sounds more like the spiteful hypocrite sibling rival than the wiser older brother.

And then there's the pissy threat that now Obama would not block the Palestinians getting statehood by U. N. decree rather than what he always said was truly necessary--agreement between Israelis and Palestinians. All just because Netanyahu acted like an American politician instead of the idyllic "what's best about Israeli democracy"? Really? When those whom Netanyahu has to "negotiate" and come to some agreement with are not honest democratic angels and who represent those who don't want a two state solution, but one Palestinian state and no Israeli state? And these "negotiations" have been going on for almost 40 years?

So this supposed wiser older brother is so concerned with the well-being of his sibling that he must dictate how that brother acts and what he says? And then talk glowingly about democracy as if he had any significant inkling of what that word means?

And this wiser older brother would glow on about Israel's honorable, fair and democratic traditions and totally neglect to mention the spent blood and violence that was necessary to defend that founding and its traditions? And that it was and is under various assaults and threats, even by those with whom it must negotiate in order to appease the wiser older brother? And if it doesn't keep up the decades old charade of negotiations while under assault, the loving wiser older brother drops the chilling hint that if it doesn't toe the line "then I think that it [will] give ammunition to folks who don't believe in a Jewish state". The wiser older brother, it would be assumed, would be among those "folks" since it all would have come about because little brother didn't do as he was told.

This Iran deal get more unbelievable and disturbing by the moment.
And now this administration has declassified information on the Israeli nuclear program???? Wtf
I can't help but feel that Israel and America are passengers on an airliner , Obama is the copilot, and the GOP and the prime minister of Israel represent the pilot locked out of the cockpit.
Everyone is screaming as the plane suddenly loses altitude but Spence and Paul are sitting there calmly explaining what a brilliant copilot we have.
I now truly don't know who's side Obama is on.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Everyone is screaming as the plane suddenly loses altitude but Spence and Paul are sitting there calmly explaining what a brilliant copilot we have.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

destination Hale-Bopp

If that is a danger to democracy in Israel, why is it not the same danger here in the U.S.? Don't our politicians, certainly Obama supporters do, try to "get out the vote" on election days? And don't they warn that the other side will win and bring about disaster for the country if their own side doesn't vote? In fact, there are "reports" (I know you like and often depend on "reports') that Obama actually sent some of his "expert" community election organizers (included in the Left-wing NGOs Netanyahu spoke of) to help defeat Netanyahu? It would seem, therefor, that what Netanyahu said, contrary to Obama's suggestion, would actually level the playing field and ensure "everybody in the country being treated equally and fairly" would happen.
It sure fits the narrative doesn't it, Obama sending operatives to undermine the election because he (queue dark music) HATES NETANYAHU - - - - MUAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA.

Imagine if Jeb called on the right to mobilize because the blacks were being bussed into the polls.

And then there's the pissy threat that now Obama would not block the Palestinians getting statehood by U. N. decree rather than what he always said was truly necessary--agreement between Israelis and Palestinians. All just because Netanyahu acted like an American politician instead of the idyllic "what's best about Israeli democracy"? Really? When those whom Netanyahu has to "negotiate" and come to some agreement with are not honest democratic angels and who represent those who don't want a two state solution, but one Palestinian state and no Israeli state? And these "negotiations" have been going on for almost 40 years
It's not a pissy threat, it's a real threat. For those 40 years the US has used the veto to protect Israel, sometimes more for their interest than ours. It's important because Bibi was elected largely by gathering right wing votes and now those parties will look for actions that only exacerbate tension in the area.

This Iran deal get more unbelievable and disturbing by the moment.
And now this administration has declassified information on the Israeli nuclear program???? Wtf
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
That's not actually true, but reading the usual tabloids you'd certainly get that opinion.

I did the digging for you buck.

It was an unclassified report from 1987 on NATO and Israeli technical capabilities. The document never said they had a bomb but did describe activities that were intended to produce one.

A researcher found mention of the document in multiple public reports and filed a FOIA request. His contention is that since Israel never signed the NPT, the 86 billion $ of taxpayer aid since 1987 along with tens of millions in tax free donations sent back to Israel are illegal under The Symington Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

The DoD refused so he sued the government. After a lot of heel dragging a federal judge ordered the requested parts of the document to be released. It was reported the DoD was going to review the document with the Israeli government but it's not clear if this happened.

Considering how close the P5+1 are to signing a nuclear deal with Iran, highlighting an obvious double standard isn't exactly in Obama's interest. But it's sure fun to think so huh?

That's not actually true, but reading the usual tabloids you'd certainly get that opinion.

I did the digging for you buck.

It was an unclassified report from 1987 on NATO and Israeli technical capabilities. The document never said they had a bomb but did describe activities that were intended to produce one.

A researcher found mention of the document in multiple public reports and filed a FOIA request. His contention is that since Israel never signed the NPT, the 86 billion $ of taxpayer aid since 1987 along with tens of millions in tax free donations sent back to Israel are illegal under The Symington Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

The DoD refused so he sued the government. After a lot of heel dragging a federal judge ordered the requested parts of the document to be released. It was reported the DoD was going to review the document with the Israeli government but it's not clear if this happened.

Considering how close the P5+1 are to signing a nuclear deal with Iran, highlighting an obvious double standard isn't exactly in Obama's interest. But it's sure fun to think so huh?

Did you research that while seated in first class or business ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did you research that while seated in first class or business ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Not flying today. I did it over coffee.

It sure fits the narrative doesn't it, Obama sending operatives to undermine the election because he (queue dark music) HATES NETANYAHU - - - - MUAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA.

Imagine if Jeb called on the right to mobilize because the blacks were being bussed into the polls.

Your evil phony laugh fits your narrative. But it doesn't negate my contention that Netanyahu was politicking as Americans do. As in Democrat get out the vote narrations such as Republican wars on women, science, the poor, education, and so on, in order to scare their base to vote. And the focus to specifically get out the black voters by scaring them with inflammatory rhetoric, either by politicians, or their proxy NAACP droids who warn of white Republican racism, and attempts to return to Jim Crowe voting laws. And colorful but inflammatory remarks like Biden's back to chains remark. The Personal destruction/demonization ,such as painting Romney as cruel to his dog or being a teenage bully, goes on in both parties. It is a mark of American politics, which Obama is not averse to. And it makes him at least a hypocrite in accusing Netanyahu of it. And Netanyahu wasn't accusing the Arab voters of anything other than coming out to vote in droves, and "scaring" his own base to do likewise.

It's not a pissy threat, it's a real threat. For those 40 years the US has used the veto to protect Israel, sometimes more for their interest than ours. I

Good, and scary, to know that his threat is real. But that does not make it any less pissy.

It's important because Bibi was elected largely by gathering right wing votes and now those parties will look for actions that only exacerbate tension in the area.

This is a strange comment. So, only the "left wing" will erase tensions in the area? How have elections been gathered in the past 40 years? Have there been no tensions when left wingers were elected? Oh, that's right, the left wing kept giving away land . . . but, somehow, the tensions always remained and the left wing giveaways never satisfied the Palestinians. It seemed that the more they got, the more they wanted. And it never seemed to wash out from the Palestinian rhetoric the desire for the elimination of Israel.

The 40 years have been full of wars and never ending attacks even with multiple cease fires. I don't know how the Israeli right wingers are going to exacerbate this never ending tension--maybe a final war to end it? The "tension in the area" as you put it, does seem to be going in that direction. And that direction is not being guided by Israel or its right wingers, but by the Arabs and Muslim factions all on their own. And the average Palestinian would, at least in Western terms, be much safer and healthier in an Israeli state than in the aftermath of a regional conflagration in which Israel no longer existed. Of course, the Palestinians, or Muslims in general, don't operate through Western perspective. They have their own views and desires none of which really have room for Israelis. And we're supposed to believe that Netanyahu is a racist right winger who wants to oppress, or maybe get rid of Palestinians.

The "tension in the area" as you put it, does seem to be going in that direction. And that direction is not being guided by Israel or its right wingers, but by the Arabs and Muslim factions all on their own.

You forgot one .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You forgot one .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh, I forgot, he's not a Muslim. So he would not be included in the Muslim factions.

More on Islamic Taqiyya and when it is used, and how " Muslims should preach peace when weak, war when strong":

Raymond Ibrahim | Friday Mar 27, 2015 9:50 AM
Obama Trusts ‘Word’ of Ayatollahs in Nuclear Negotiations

As Iran continues edging closer to developing nuclear weapons—a major threat to the entire Mideast region, especially longstanding U.S. ally Israel—U.S. President Obama has come to the aid of the Islamic Republic, by citing an Islamic fatwa no less. In a video recording posted on the White House’s website, Obama said, “Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, and President Rouhani has said that Iran would never develop a nuclear weapon.”

This is the same Rouhani who, after recently showcasing Iran’s newly developed missiles, described his nation’s diplomatic talks with the U.S. as an active “jihad”: “Our negotiations with the world powers are a source of national pride. Yesterday [during the Iran-Iraq War], your brave generals stood against the enemy on the battlefield and defended their country. Today, your diplomatic generals are defending [our nation] in the field of diplomacy–this, too, is jihad.”

Other administration officials—such as Secretary of State John Kerry and Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes—have previously referred to the ayatollah’s reported fatwa in the context of the ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran.

The Obama administration’s citation of this fatwa is utterly wrongheaded on many levels.

First, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya permits Muslims to deceive non-Muslims. Islamic prophet Muhammad himself regularly lied to his infidel enemies, often resulting in their murder (such as the case of The_Murder_of_Kab_Ashraf”). He also proclaimed that lying was permissible in three contexts, one being war. Moreover, throughout the centuries and due to historic circumstances (discussed here:http://www.raymondibrahim.com/islam/how-taqiyya-alters-islams-rules-of-war/ ), taqiyya became second nature to the Shia—the sect currently ruling Iran.

Then there is the fact that Islamic law takes circumstance into account. When Muhammad was weak and outnumbered in Mecca, he preached peace and tolerance (hence why Meccan Suras appear peaceful); when he became strong in Medina, he preached war and went on the offensive (hence why Medinan Suras are violent and intolerant). This dichotomy—preach peace when weak, wage war when strong—has been Islamic modus operandi for centuries.

Speaking of fatwas, Dr. Yusuf Burhami, a prominent Islamic cleric in Egypt, recently said that destroying churches in Egypt is permissible if not advisable—but not if doing so prompts Western infidels to intervene and occupy Egypt, which they could do “because the condition of Muslims in the current era is well known to the nations of the world—they are weak.” Burhami further added that circumstance is everything, “just as the prophet allowed the Jews to remain in Khaibar after he opened [conquered] it, once Muslims grew in strength and number, [second caliph] Omar al-Khattab drove them out according to the prophet’s command, ‘Drive out the Jews and Christians from the Peninsula.’”

And who can forget Yasser Arafat’s reference to Muhammad’s Hudaybiya pact? In 1994, soon after negotiating a peace treaty criticized as conceding too much to Israel, Arafat addressed an assembly of Muslims and said: “I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the [infidel] Quraysh in Mecca.” In other words, like Muhammad, Arafat gave his word only to annul it once his ranks became strong enough to go on the offensive.

In short, it’s all very standard for Islamic leaders to say they are pursuing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes while they are weaker than their infidel foes—as Iran is today—but once they acquire nukes the jihad can resume in earnest.

Then there is the fact that Shia theology is rife with apocalyptic aspirations. An August 2007 report compiled by the Congressional Research Service said: “Ahmadinejad [previous president of Iran] believes his mission is to prepare for the return of the 12th ‘Hidden’ Imam, whose return from occultation [i.e., “hiding”] would, according to Twelver Shi’ite doctrine, be accompanied by the establishment of Islam as the global religion.”

Like other Iranians, Ahmadinejad cited the eschatological (and canonical) hadith wherein Muhammad said: “The Hour [Judgment Day] will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and until the Jews hide behind the trees and rocks and the trees and rocks will say, ‘O Muslim, O Servant of God! Here are the Jews! Come and kill them!”

Indeed, during a recent speech, supreme leader Khamenei—whose fatwa Obama is now citing—boasted about Iran’s uranium enrichment, even as his military commanders shouted, “Allah Akbar. Khamenei is the leader. Death to the enemies of the leadership. Death to America. Death to England. Death to hypocrites. Death to Israel.”

Yet despite all this—despite the fact that Islamic doctrine mandates lying to infidels; despite the fact that the Shia—Iran’s leadership—have perfected taqiyya into an art; despite the fact that Islamic law holds that Muslims should preach peace when weak, war when strong; despite the fact that Iranian leadership openly boasts that its nuclear negotiations are a “jihad” against the infidel; despite the fact that Iran has previously been exposed developing uranium enrichments suitable for nuclear warheads—here is Obama and his administration relying on the “word” of the ayatollah of Iran.

wow...sounds just like progressive doctrine..."Progressive Taqiyya"...splains' a lot


so in this negotiation...there's no one telling the truth :rotf2:

I did not properly insert this link into the above article on taqiyya (which I have corrected). If you missed the correction, here is the link http://www.raymondibrahim.com/islam/how-taqiyya-alters-islams-rules-of-war/ It is fundamental to understanding any negotiations with Shia or Sunni Muslims who correctly practice their faith.

It's a long but interesting article, and well worth reading, in terms of understanding an important tenet of Islam.

Here is a very interesting tidbit from the above cited article which may shed some possible insight into the reported 10 year length of the nuclear agreement being negotiated with Iran:

"The perpetual nature of jihad is highlighted by the fact that, based on the 10-year treaty of Hudaybiya (628), ratified between Muhammad and his Quraysh opponents in Mecca, most jurists are agreed that ten years is the maximum amount of time Muslims can be at peace with infidels; once the treaty has expired, the situation needs to be reappraised."

The article is rich with insights into Islam's world view and its relation to non-Muslims. It can help penetrate some of the mysterious fog that masks the reason for Islamic true believers difficulty, from the Western perspective, of entering the modern world. Well worth the time to read it. http://www.raymondibrahim.com/islam/...-rules-of-war/

huh......soooo lying and deception are acceptable to promote an agenda/ideaology...and have over time become an acceptable part of the culture and even celebrated/elected to high office are those with the most forked of tongues....when weak or not in power play the victim card to deflect and move forward or preserve the agenda/ideaology and when strong or in power hammer the opposition and ignore their pleas for the same basic rights and that were claimed when weak all the while pushing an intolerant agenda creating even more victims in the region


yup....sounds familiar...was Saul Alynski a musilm extrmist?:rotf3:

And that direction is not being guided by Israel or its right wingers, but by the Arabs and Muslim factions all on their own. And the average Palestinian would, at least in Western terms, be much safer and healthier in an Israeli state than in the aftermath of a regional conflagration in which Israel no longer existed. Of course, the Palestinians, or Muslims in general, don't operate through Western perspective. They have their own views and desires none of which really have room for Israelis. And we're supposed to believe that Netanyahu is a racist right winger who wants to oppress, or maybe get rid of Palestinians.
I see, to the issue in Palestine is the complete responsibility of Muslims? That's perhaps the most short-sighted thing you've ever written...

Ironic you'd actually eclipse it with your posts on Taqiyya which take batchit to another level.

What's with all the hate?

I see, to the issue in Palestine is the complete responsibility of Muslims? That's perhaps the most short-sighted thing you've ever written...

Sorry that I didn't make clear that by the "regional conflagration" I meant the entire Middle East, not just Israel and the Palestinians. Certainly, Israel and the Palestinians are both a thorn in the side of the other Arab or non-Arab Musllim States. They are both used as wedge issues to unite various Muslims in one sort of Jihad or other. And it is ironic that Palestinians get more respect and freedom in the state of Israel than in the rest of the Middle East. If those other states, especially Iran with its Hezbollah, kept their noses out of Israeli and Palestinian disagreement, there might be a better chance for resolution of their problem. I don't know if that lengthens the sight of my "thing," but it is longer than your drive-by comment.

Ironic you'd actually eclipse it with your posts on Taqiyya which take batchit to another level.

That's truly a deep and overwhelming statement. Backed solely by the pre-eminent solipsist, the great and powerful Oz . . .er, I mean Spence. What happens, Spence, when the little dog pulls away the curtain? Perhaps you can pull out fake diplomas to back up your nowhere, relativistic opinions. Maybe a link to a Zakaria article, or point to the supposedly deep constitutional understanding of a Muslim negotiator (who no doubt knows more about Taqiyya than you do). Talk about batchit!

So go ahead, if you can, inform us all about the level of batchit in Ibrahim's articles on Taqiyya.

Maybe, if you truly have something relevant to say about it, it might inspire others to read the articles. Or, maybe your authoritative sneer and dismissal of them will suppress interest in them, since the great Spence has deemed them batchit.

What's with all the hate?

Indeed, what's with all the hate, Spence--batchit, shortsighted?

Oh, maybe your just pulling a Dangles.

Quality reading material right here :hihi:

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/peace-with-iran-could-limit-ability-to-bomb-it-warns-mccain
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Quality reading material right here :hihi:

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/peace-with-iran-could-limit-ability-to-bomb-it-warns-mccain
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually, it's almost funny. Unfortunately, rather than poking fun at some actual absurdity, it first creates the absurdity. Then it spins a made-up narrative intending to destroy with phony ridicule. It's half-wit slapschtick, mixed with political straw man nastiness, in hope of swaying or bolstering opinion, rather than merely being made to evoke laughter. Jon Stewart fans will love it.

What makes it hard to bust out in a guffaw, unless you like anything that ridicules that which you don't like, true or not, is not only the total fabrication, but the actual seriousness of the matter. And what's even more ridiculous is a bunch of half-wits will actually think McCain said that stuff.

Kinda like Fox News and msnbc watchers. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually, it's just satire.

No kidding ! It's in the humor section.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So, Spence, we shouldn't be concerned about the concept of a Eurasia, headed by Russia and China, being a serious threat to Western economic power? Let's all play golf. Or play a fiddle.

Vladimir Putin's Deputy Rogozin bragged to a TV show that Russia would develop “our huge EurAsia.”

http://www.inquisitr.com/2119177/vladimir-putins-deputy-warns-the-west-tanks-dont-need-visas/

And we are "negotiating" with Iran, a Russian ally which is predicted to be a partner in the "Eurasian" project.

And we are shrinking our military power.

I'm astounded that someone under US sanctions would lash out. Perhaps that says all it needs to right there.

As an aside, I was staring up in the Cologne Dom yesterday and might just have found God, or tourists. Not sure yet but it was pretty cool regardless.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm astounded that someone under US sanctions would lash out. Perhaps that says all it needs to right there.

As an aside, I was staring up in the Cologne Dom yesterday and might just have found God, or tourists. Not sure yet but it was pretty cool regardless.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Umm . . . I believe that "someone" lashed out before the imposition of sanctions--that's why, I would guess, the sanctions were imposed. Can't be "absolutely" sure. Never can tell . . . maybe the US just likes to dole out willy-nilly sanctions. Especially under the current administration.

And the Eurasian project had been under way well before the sanctions. And that includes the growth of military power by its two most important countries Russia and China, while the West depends more on diplomacy and economic "sanctions." That's why "someone" could brush off and laugh at the little bug bite "punishment" by a country and its European allies that he views as pusillanimous. He obviously didn't think there would be any military response to the invasion of Ukraine other than by the overmatched Ukrainians.

I'm guessing that "someone," might not fear much military resistance from the U.S or its European allies for the next two years after witnessing the near total reluctance of the current US administration to use troops for war. Suspect he doesn't fear drone attacks or air strikes since he has his own drones and plenty of air power as well.

Head in the sand may work for ostriches, but humans who try it usually get their butt kicked.

And, yeah, it's easier to find God in the beauty of ancient things (Cologne Dom being much older than the Constitution, BTW).

But it's more likely that a progressive would see tourists rather than God.

Were you there with family, or just business?

I think Russia fears our economic might much more than a military conflict we'll rightly avoid. He's just trying to play Cold War games...this isn't a sprint.

In Germany for work but trying to see some fun stuff. The Charlamagne exhibit in Aachen was very nice.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think Russia fears our economic might much more than a military conflict we'll rightly avoid. He's just trying to play Cold War games...this isn't a sprint.

In Germany for work but trying to see some fun stuff. The Charlamagne exhibit in Aachen was very nice.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why would any country fear U.S. economic might? Hasn't that might been a benefactor to the world? Rather than fearing our economy, shouldn't they be trying to imitate it? To join in the great party of economic kumbaya? Sort of a worldwide economic franchise similar, perhaps, to a major league franchise where all teams compete but are interdependent in striving for the same goal. The winner gets the accolades, but all are enriched.

On the other hand, if it were something to be feared but not emulated, something that was a barrier to a different goal, then it would have to be defeated or contained. Neither Russia nor China act as if they have the same goal as America. Nor do, other than Israel, the countries of the Middle East or other Islamic countries. Nor do various countries in Africa or South or Latin America. Even various countries in Europe lean toward different goals than we.

So, then, if something other than or beyond economic might are of prime importance to these other countries, does that not then diminish the importance of American economic might in achieving their goals? And if they view American economics as an obstacle to be overcome would they not resort to means other than such economics?

Would not military power and anti-U.S. political and economic alliances be a better means to obviate American economic might?

And isn't that exactly what the Russian and Chinese, et. al., Eurasian project with its growing alliances, including, SCO, BRICS, the Paris-Moscow-Beijing axis, and the Axis of Hope, etc. are about? And they are not in a sprint, but in for the marathon.

In the meantime, our economic power is increasingly overburdened with debt and leftist regulations, and our military is gradually shrinking. We are probably at a point where we couldn't effectively do the type of sprint which could have eradicated potential enemies while they were still weak. They appear to be growing stronger as we grow weaker. That would be OK if it were merely an appearance, and the reality was the opposite.

I "think" we should greatly strengthen our military might, shrink our national debt, let our economy grow organically rather than by government fiat (which actually restricts it), and re-instill an American pride in individual ability rather than the growing drift into dependence on government. That would also not be a sprint. It would take some time to re-establish that which created American economic, along with its military, power.

In the marathon rather than sprint, those who do not wish us well are probably comfortable with the socialistic direction our progressive governments lead us. The trajectory, in the long run, is all toward their direction.

But, do enjoy the great exhibits of old European grandeur. It may be fun stuff, and a harbinger of new great things to come.

I "think" we should greatly strengthen our military might, shrink our national debt, let our economy grow organically rather than by government fiat (which actually restricts it), and re-instill an American pride in individual ability rather than the growing drift into dependence on government. That would also not be a sprint. It would take some time to re-establish that which created American economic, along with its military, power.





Great summation, detbuch, unfortunately it seems we have too few with enough commonsense to comprehend it.

Putin Threatens America with Nuclear Annihilation

By Cliff Kincaid July 28, 2015 6:46 am

The nation is fiercely debating the Iran nuclear deal and the significance of the Ayatollah’s “death to America” tweets when the real problem is Iran’s sponsor, Russia, and its lunatic ruler, Vladimir Putin. By controlling the media, killing off the opposition, and smearing Ukrainian freedom fighters as Nazis, the former KGB colonel has his country worked into a collective frenzy over a concocted Western threat. Some experts believe Russia is preparing for nuclear war on a global scale. If Putin carries out his threats, America is no more.

In this case, the U.S. is facing not only a nuclear weapons program, which is the case with Iran, but what our top generals are calling an “existential threat” to our survival as a nation.

As the National Institute for Public Policy documents in the report, “Foreign Nuclear Developments: A Gathering Storm,” Russia has a new military doctrine that anticipates using nuclear weapons, and the regime has embarked on “a massive strategic modernization program to deploy new nuclear weapons and delivery systems.”

Not only that, but Russia has a ballistic missile defense to use against us.

Geopolitical analyst Jeff Nyquist tells Accuracy in Media, “The Russians became angry and threatening when NATO tried to build a very modest missile defense system to stop an Iranian missile. Yet Russia has over 10,000 dual purpose SAM/ABMs for defense against our missiles and will be deploying a new ABM prototype next year.”

He adds, “Russia has potential war winning advantages over the U.S. and NATO—not necessarily in the number of nuclear weapons but in the number of its ABM batteries, and the upgrading of these batteries with a new generation of interceptor rockets while the American side makes no effort in this direction. The U.S. ABMs in Alaska and California would be lucky to stop 12 Russian warheads.”

Despite the preoccupation with Iran’s nuclear program, Iran currently has nothing of that nature which can threaten the homeland of the United States. Yet, Russia can obliterate the United States, a fact that has been highlighted recently by no less than three top American generals. The term, “existential threat,” has been used repeatedly to describe the Russian challenge. That term means the Russians can destroy the United States as a nation.

Marine Corps General Joseph Dunford, nominated to become chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, “If you want to talk about a nation that could pose an existential threat to the United States, I’d have to point to Russia.”

His statement, made during his Senate confirmation hearing on July 9, got a significant amount of media attention. Similar warnings came from Army General Mark A. Milley, commander of U.S. Forces Command, who has been nominated to become the next Army chief of staff, and Air Force General Paul Selva, nominated to become Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

Dunford and the other generals acknowledge the real or potential nuclear threats from Iran, North Korea, and China. But it’s Russia that is deemed an “existential threat.” It is the most significant.

Some conservatives have been complaining that patriotic military officers are being purged from the Armed Forces. Well, it appears that the purge missed Generals Dunford, Milley, and Selva. These generals are taking a risk by going against the conventional wisdom of the Obama administration. Indeed, the White House and the State Department have gone out of their way to say that the Obama administration does not agree with the assessment that Russia is an existential threat to the United States.

For the generals to go public in this manner—and to contradict the official stance of the Obama administration—suggests that the threat from Russia is very real indeed, and may be more serious than they are willing to publicly acknowledge.

When you consider how the Iran nuclear deal came about, you begin to realize how serious it is. Obama actually thanked Putin for bringing it about.

The CNN story, “Obama, Putin congratulate each other for Iran deal,” demonstrates the nature of the problem. Although the story is designed to highlight the alleged positive roles Obama and Putin played in the deal, CNN reported that in a readout of the conversation between the two leaders, “the White House said Obama thanked Putin for Russia’s role in the Iran nuclear negotiations.”

Thanked Putin? This demonstrates something worse than the deal itself and the real nature of the Iranian threat. Putin should thank Obama because the U.S. is helping Iran, Russia’s client state, get tens of billions of dollars in international financial aid. Down the line, Russia gets U.S. approval to supply more weapons to the anti-American regime.

Iran is certainly a potential nuclear threat to Israel, the so-called “little Satan.” But the U.S. is the “Great Satan,” and our biggest nuclear threat at the current time is Russia, as our top military officers have said. Yet, Obama is treating Putin as an ally.

Israel and its defenders have to come to grips with the fact that Iran is a threat to the Jewish state, the region, and the world because of its Russian sponsorship. Iran can’t be viewed in isolation, apart from Russia. Indeed, Iran is considered to be part of a “strategic alliance” with Russia.

As we have noted on several occasions, the Iranian Ayatollah, Ali Khamenei, is KGB-trained, having been “educated” at the KGB’s Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow. This means he is under Russian influence, if not an agent.

Obama has a blind spot regarding threats from the Islamic world, and that includes Iran. But his unwillingness to face up to the Russian threat, which is more serious than any on the face of the earth today, puts the very existence of the United States in jeopardy.

Remember that Obama mocked Mitt Romney’s statement during the 2012 campaign that Russia was our geopolitical adversary. Obama hasn’t learned anything, despite the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He keeps refusing to supply Ukraine with heavy weapons to defend themselves. Praising the Russians for their role in the Iran deal signals something worse than just incompetence. It appears that Russia is exercising some sort of control over the Obama administration.

We got a taste of that control when it was reported that, on Independence Day, the Kremlin announced that Putin had sent Happy July 4th greetings to Obama. We only later learned that Putin, on the same day, had also sent nuclear-capable Russian bombers off the coast of California that had to be intercepted by American aircraft.

This duplicity is another sign of the lunatic mindset of the former KGB spy running the show in Moscow. This nuclear blackmail is much more serious than a tweet from the Iranian Ayatollah showing Obama with a gun to his head. Putin has a nuclear gun pointed at America and we have practically no defense against it.

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.

Well, at least if you're going to cite a conspiracy theorist you picked a good one.

Well, at least if you're going to cite a conspiracy theorist you picked a good one.

He's very, very good. And he even offers some substance rather than just an easy, drive-by, substanceless, snide comment. The cite is food for thought . . . and actual discussion . . . if thought and discussion are provided.

A bibliography of more "conspiracies" listed by one of the authorities that the article cites:

http://www.nipp.org/publications/downloadable-files/year-2015/