"Hey, it's easy to ridicule Islam.. it's much harder to shut up!" -- Ayatollah Khomeni.

I'm the one who's mislead?

Holocaust denial, 2005 "In a 14 December speech in the city of Zahedan in southeastern Sistan va Baluchistan Province, Ahmadinejad said that if the Holocaust took place in Europe and Europeans feel so guilty about it, then that is where Israel should be located, state television reported. "They have created a myth today and they call it the massacre of the Jews [the Holocaust],"
http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1063865.html

Threat to is Isreal, 2005 "This week, Hamas head Khalid Mish'al visited Tehran. Designated a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department, Hamas advocates the destruction of Israel. "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it," ... Mish'al told Ahmadinejad on 12 December that Hamas appreciates Iran's stance against Israel generally and the president's "insistence on the illegitimate nature of Israel,""
http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1063865.html

Threat to Isreal, 2005 and 2001 "Mr Ahmadinejad told some 3,000 students in Tehran that Israel's establishment had been a move by the West against the Islamic world. He was addressing a conference entitled The World without Zionism and his comments were reported by the Iranian state news agency Irna. "As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," he said, referring to Iran's late revolutionary leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. In 2001, former Iranian president Hashemi Rafsanjani speculated that a Muslim state that developed a nuclear weapon might use it to destroy Israel. ... Mr Ahmadinejad warned leaders of Muslim nations who recognised the state of Israel that they faced "the wrath of their own people". "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4378948.stm

Threat to Isreal, June 2nd 2008, Ahmadinejad "The Zionist regime has lost its raison d'être. Today, the Palestinians identify with your name [Khomeini], your memory, and in your path. They are walking in your illuminated path and the Zionist regime has reached a total dead end. Thanks to God, your wish will soon be realized, and this germ of corruption will be wiped off."

"Death to America" is still a very popular chant. Here it is at a recent rally http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUezKsBCRbk

Here's an article talking about its use in parliament recently
http://www.poe-news.com/stories.php?poeurlid=41572

Here's an article mentioning Ahmadinejad's use of the phrase recently
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2007/09/23/2007-09-23_irans_ahmadinejad_issues_new_threats_aga.html

I'm not condoning what the US and CIA did in Iran. I'm not talking about that at all. I'm saying that Iran might actually be dangerous.

When he says he doesn't believe nuclear weapons will help him I believe him. Just like when he says he believes there was no holocaust and there are no gays in Iran, I believe him. That of course is to say, I don't believe a word of it and neither should any other sentient being.

And the above is not an advocation for war against Iran, it's a simple condemnation of an anti-semitic propagandist. Fortunately for us all, many of the Iranian youth feel the same way about the fundamentalists leading their country. So much so that Ayatollah Khomeini's grandson calls him a queer and praises the liberation of Iraq. More over, if you live in Iran and wear a beard like the conservatives you are spit on and can't get a cab. War with Iran is a terrible idea, but defending the current leadership is even worse.

"We do not believe in the separation of faith and politics."

Neither does the Ayatollah you fat slob.

I'm kind of pissed. I'll have to flesh out exactly what it is that's gotten under my skin, but this faith and politics thing really bothers me.

It's a bad sign.

Has this ever happened before? I don't remember this ever happening before in the USA.

6 Arabs who claimed to be from Khuzestan took 26 workers hostage in the Iranian embassy. Their demands were:

1. Autonomy for Arabistan
2. The release of 91 political prisoners held in Iran

The 91 political prisoners were executed on the first day of the seige.



This happened the year after Iranian students stormed the US embassy in Tehran after the Iranian people revolted against the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi who was put in power after a CIA funded coup.

The US military launched a rescue mission (Operation Eagle Claw) which failed killing 8 soliders. This led to Jimmy Carter loosing the election, and ended up strengthening the position of the Ayatollah Khomeini and radicalising anti-American forces in Iran.



This clip of the SAS storming the embassy in 1980 is unfortunately all that most people remember from those very scary times. We would do well to remember what is known historically as 'America's first war with militant Islam', with all the propaganda about Iranian nukes that is dribbling out of the evil frothing mouth of corporate American media these days.

I expect there to be mayhem. Kind of like the Ayatollah's funeral.

In reply to this comment by karkarlee:
I wonder if there will be a race of who gets to make the congratulatory post when you get your crown.

>> ^SaNdMaN:
"Outstanding. This guy needs to be on Jon Stewart and/or Colbert if he hasn't already."
He was on The Daily Show and it wasn't anything special.


By 'not anything special' generally means that he defended the Iraq war rather than attacking religion. Thus disappointing a large portion of the crowd. For those interested, his Daily Show appearances include him talking about nearly getting spanked by Margaret Thatcher, playing devils advocate for Mother Theresa and having the grand son of Ayatollah Kohmanei over for supper at his house. Oh, and the time he spent in Iraq and North Korea too. Nothing special? One of the far and away most interesting guests the Daily Show has had, which is saying a lot.

>> ^conan:
that´s propagandistic. i think he still works for the cia, maybe "fake-reasons-for-war marketing", we already know that department for weapons of mass destruction in iraq ;-)


Just because the clip shows fundamentalists and their regimes in a bad light doesn't make it propaganda. Even a majority of Iranian youth view Ayatollah Khomeini with disdain. This clip only talks about the movement Khomeini started, and yes, it is a bloody and despicable movement. That's not propaganda, it's just the way it is.

>> ^BillPayer:
They should have kept going (he is a big supporter of the iraq war)


He also condemns Bush and Cheney's actions(including the use of torture). He's not a neo-con apologist, he's someone who's spent a great deal of time with people in the worst parts of the world who happens to support the war as a result. He's been to North Korea as a visiting professor, he's had the grand son of Ayatollah Khamenei over to his house for supper, and has many good Kurdish friends whom he's spent time with before and after the war. When asked about terrorists in Iraq before the war, he didn't use talking points, he said "When I went to interview Abu Nidal, then the most wanted terrorist in the world, in Baghdad, he was operating out of an Iraqi government office."

States and local governments can run schools without any federal help, and they did in the past. Most public schools get only a small percentage of their funding from the federal government. Local boards of education are elected locally without much interference by the federal government.

As soon as any school takes so much as a penny from the federal mafia, they are forced to play by the feds' rules. And even if they don't, they are weighted down by edicts from on high, including the NCLB baloney. Local schools boards with electable positions? Sounds like more of the same-o. Compulsory state education means no ingenuity or merit for finding better ways to teach and learn; making sure everyone is doing the exact same thing even when it doesn't work. Schools should be like restaurants...with many trying to make it and the most successful doing so by offering something of measurable quality.

Show me competitive private services that can deliver your letters anywhere in the USA for 41 cents and I'll support your plan to scrap the USPS. There's nothing preventing Fedex and UPS from trying that right now, except that they can't do it that cheap.

Actually, the post office monopoly prevents FedEx and UPS from delivering any letter-sized envelope for the present rate or less; one of postal inspectors' major tasks is to make sure their monopoly is protected by spying on UPS and FedEx. You wouldn't have to disband the post office, just by ridding its artificial barrier I think it would die out on its own.

Your argument against the infrastructure and such has some merit, I'm sure it was used when FedEx got started. Yet here they are, competing with one of the world's largest government boondoggles. FedEx and UPS either turn a profit or die. The USPS, without any incentive to do better, loses BILLIONS of dollars every year. They would not last a year without the law.

This is the same congress that pays a chaplain tens of thousands of dollars a year to lead a prayer every time Congress is called in to session. This is the same congress that almost unanimously passed a condemnation of Newdow's legal attempt to restore the Pledge of Allegiance to its pre-1954 version (the Pledge didn't say "under God" before 1954). This is the same congress that funds Bush's OFBCI. The supreme court has been very clear that students can pray by themselves as much as they want on their own lunch break but official prayer-times when taxpayer-funded teachers entice students to pray are unconstitutional.

And these are things that truly offend you and depreciate the quality of your life? Freedom FROM religion is a gross distortion of the Founders' intent. Tyranny of the minority. I hate to say it like this, but atheism does not represent something "better" than religion. It doesn't offer any moral foundation or transmit societal values. That's why IMAO, there's never been a successful majority atheist society (I'm aware of). I write this as a former atheist. I know what is to be gained by being free of superstition, but I also know society is extremely fragile, and will die without its delusions. If atheists succeed in "getting rid" of religion, life will be worse for them as well.

We're in far more danger of becoming a socialist state than a theocracy. It may happen peacefully and even "legally" if enough people are convinced (to their detriment) that socialism is the way to go.

Those aren't even mutually exclusive. Jesus Christ was a socialist. Jesus Christ gave all kinds of handouts to the poor and asked something in return. He asked people to give all they could to the church and the poor. That's a taxing-and-spending entitlement system. Huckabee, the Christian fundamentalist, was also in agreement with the Democrats on most economic issues. Iran, which is officially a Theocracy ruled by the Ayatollah, also heavily subsidizes the cost of food, which you might call Socialist.

Jesus gave handouts but did not take them from others by force beforehand. He asked people to give, but did not threaten or curse them for not doing so. Most importantly, Jesus did not ever say that government's role is providing the means to help the poor.

Despite its failures due to humans being imperfect, (moderately regulated) free market capitalism has done more to lift the poor out of poverty than any other system. And I'm speaking from near the bottom of the ladder, my friend. I know times is tight for you too right now...

In reply to this comment by jwray:

“I think the most basic reason why the Americans should worry about Atomic Ayatollah’s is that they keep chanting ‘death to Omrika’ for more than 25 years” ... and haven’t attacked the US or any other western country in all those year, shows what exactly?

But of course, a proud and powerful people, living within the same borders for centuries, unaffected by western occupation and “protectoration” -- making it an older country than the US -- that would use insurgents and guerillas instead of contractors and, most of all, wouldn’t take a war waged on them lying down; well, seriously that is ridiculous and totally unacceptable.

Btw, anybody who’s ever seen one of those demo’s (I didn’t even know they still have one in Tehran every Friday, but the one I encountered in Masshad to celebrate Revolution Day must have been quite similar) knows they’re pretty lame.

What about falwell, hagee, robertson, the pope, etc?

The pope's anti-contraception activism has lead to quite a lot of poverty and suffering. The nuts in christianity are more like 30% than 0.1%. The same goes for Islam. You have high-ranking clerics issuing death warrant fatwas over books and cartoons (such as the Iranian head of state, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has wide support among Iranian Muslims still living in Iran and much less support among exiles and emigres)

>> ^doogle:
I'm saying McCain ain't necessarily wrong to point to Ahmedinejad. IMHO it's not an unreasonable conclusion considering the blurred lines of the power heads in some countries.


We're not talking about "some countries", we're talking about a country Bush and McCain want to go to war with.

McCain isn't supposed to be just an average American, he wants to be the Commander in Chief, and the political head of our government.

We're talking about who has control of the military of Iran, and who's in charge of their nuclear program.

Experts say it's not blurry, it's Ayatollah Khamenei.

That doesn't mean McCain "ain't necessarily wrong", it means McCain either doesn't know who Khamenei is, or thinks there's a good reason to browbeat a reporter for the merest suggestion that there is more than one person in the government of Iran.

If McCain knew who the guy was, why not say "You make a good point, but I'm still against diplomacy with anyone from the Iranian government because..." and then behind the scenes go "ya know, Ayatollah Khamenei is a scarier name, and I'm sure he's said bad stuff about Israel, next time let's see if we can't incorporate him and quotes from in our speech..."

Instead, his response made it pretty clear he didn't have the faintest clue who Khamenei was, and arrogantly proclaimed the questioner must be wrong.

That confident ignorance is the other main element of the video, I would say.

McCain didn't just say 2 + 2 = 5 on camera, he continued on insisting that despite mathematicians saying 2 + 2 = 4, he's still right about 2 + 2 equalling 5, and tried to ridicule mathematicians for saying otherwise.

It's this willful denial of inconvenient facts that is the most poisonous aspect of the Bush regime, and McCain is signaling here that he intends to mimic that aspect as well.

>> ^doogle:
I don't think I can say that this journalist has anything on McCain here.
If McCain has anything to be blamed for, it's for making the leap that it's Iran that Obama is talking about, but that one isn't much.
Comparing the formal and political leaders of Iran (Ahmedinejad vs. TheOtherGuy) is like pointing out the Queen is the head of state of Britain and Gordon Brown (new guy) isn't.
It gets even muddier here in Canada, our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper (who?) isn't the formal head of state, and Governor General Michaelle Jean (who?), is actually the Queen's representative in Canada.
McCain may not be right, but he's not wrong to point out Ahmedinejad as the political leader.


We're talking about REAL power here, doogle, not just mere formalities. QE2 has for all intents and purposes ZERO power in Canada AND the UK, whereas Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has REAL power in Iran. He is NO mere figurehead, like Canada's Governor General, or Her Majesty herself. Be informed before you downvote someone's opinion, even if I'm speaking in a satirical voice.

I want to see Chomsky and Hitchens sit down and debate the middle east for a few hours.

A few things I'd appreciate if someone can explain to me.
1.Why mention the over throw of the Shah, but ignore that current Iranian popular opinion is pro-US and strongly against the Ayatollah?
2.Does America really have to accept Iranian support of Iraqi insurgents without complaint because America has backed insurgents else where?
3.When talking about American support for Saddam against Iran, it's disingenuous to leave out that America was working with most of the middle-eastern Arabs who looked to Saddam almost as a hero.
4.Why completely ignore the obvious reason to be more concerned over Iran's nuclear program than countries like Japan? That obvious reason being Iran's stated desire to remove Israel from the map. Chomsky himself points out the agreement between Iran and the EU were Iran restarts their nuclear program because their 'security' wasn't secured as promised. Let's not pretend anything but military security was at stake and Iran wants nuclear weapons to get it.
5. Why do all the talking heads on both sides refuse to discuss the real world. If Iran stops supporting Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorist organizations and recognizes Israel's right to exist, then there aren't any valid complaints to throw at them anymore. As long as those are outstanding, it's pretty tough to say they are just victims of unwarranted American aggression. At the very least, Israel must be recognized as a victim as well of unwarranted Iranian aggression, which Chomsky et. al. are very reluctant to accept.