>> ^CaptainObvious:

>> ^Asmo:
>> ^CaptainObvious:
Fuck no.
Noam Chomsky is a genius and I agree with him almost always - but on this - no way - no.
ANY country with nuclear weaponry is a threat to everyone - let alone a country like Iran. Look what a pain in the ass we have with North Korea and Pakistan.
I remember the cold war and the persistent fear of mutual destruction and the perverse rationality behind it.
I don't want ANY country (including my own) to have nukes, least of all non-democratic countries.
Allowing them and any other non-nuclear country to have nukes is the wrong direction.
We need countries to start giving up nuclear weapons, not proliferating and spreading the disease even more.
The United States might be denying Iran nukes for the wrong reasons (OIL) and perhaps Israel for the right reasons, but frankly I don't care either way.
One less country with nukes is never a bad thing.
---------
"Mr. President, it is not only possible, it is essential. That is the whole idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the FEAR to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision-making process which rules out human meddling, the Doomsday machine is terrifying and simple to understand... and completely credible and convincing". - Dr Strangelove - yeah. makes sense huh.

What if all they want enrichment for is nuclear power..? \= |
Or, ya know, the right of self determination?

"The state of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran has been criticized both by Iranians and international human right activists...
The government of Iran is criticized both for restrictions and punishments... such as the torture, rape, and killing of political prisoners, and the beatings and killings of dissidents and other civilians....
...execution of offenders under 18 years of age, restrictions on freedom of speech and the press (including the imprisonment of journalists), and restrictions on [[freedom of religion[[ and gender equality in the Islamic Republic's Constitution (especially attacks on members of the Bahá'í religion)...
...execution of thousands of political prisoners in 1988, and the widespread use of torture to extract repudiations by prisoners of their cause and comrades on video for propaganda purposes....
Under the administration of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s human rights record "has deteriorated markedly," ... --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_
Iran
Not all countries are built the same.
"right of self determination" - well, where do you draw the line? Can dictators pull this card out as well?


You are conflating two entirely different issues, and doing a bad job of it to boot...

Iran has done the same things for years, but the only thing that get's the US and Israel wet is when nuclear is involved. Don't kid yourself for a second in believing either country would go in to save the people from a dictatorial regime, all they care about is someone else dealing themselves in to the nuclear game. I suspect you know this very well of course but it makes a much more compelling case to break out the violins and claim the action is humanitarian.

>> ^Asmo:

>> ^CaptainObvious:
Fuck no.
Noam Chomsky is a genius and I agree with him almost always - but on this - no way - no.
ANY country with nuclear weaponry is a threat to everyone - let alone a country like Iran. Look what a pain in the ass we have with North Korea and Pakistan.
I remember the cold war and the persistent fear of mutual destruction and the perverse rationality behind it.
I don't want ANY country (including my own) to have nukes, least of all non-democratic countries.
Allowing them and any other non-nuclear country to have nukes is the wrong direction.
We need countries to start giving up nuclear weapons, not proliferating and spreading the disease even more.
The United States might be denying Iran nukes for the wrong reasons (OIL) and perhaps Israel for the right reasons, but frankly I don't care either way.
One less country with nukes is never a bad thing.
---------
"Mr. President, it is not only possible, it is essential. That is the whole idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the FEAR to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision-making process which rules out human meddling, the Doomsday machine is terrifying and simple to understand... and completely credible and convincing". - Dr Strangelove - yeah. makes sense huh.

What if all they want enrichment for is nuclear power..? \= |
Or, ya know, the right of self determination?


"The state of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran has been criticized both by Iranians and international human right activists...

The government of Iran is criticized both for restrictions and punishments... such as the torture, rape, and killing of political prisoners, and the beatings and killings of dissidents and other civilians....

...execution of offenders under 18 years of age, restrictions on freedom of speech and the press (including the imprisonment of journalists), and restrictions on [[freedom of religion[[ and gender equality in the Islamic Republic's Constitution (especially attacks on members of the Bahá'í religion)...

...execution of thousands of political prisoners in 1988, and the widespread use of torture to extract repudiations by prisoners of their cause and comrades on video for propaganda purposes....

Under the administration of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s human rights record "has deteriorated markedly," ... --

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

Not all countries are built the same.

"right of self determination" - well, where do you draw the line? Can dictators pull this card out as well?

You'll find no argument from me about whether our government has been rattling the hornets nest over there for some time. However, I don't place the blame for Muslim outrage on America, or the KGB, I place the blame on Islam. The reason they are so stirred up is because their religion teaches them to hate Jews, Christians, and anyone else who isn't a Muslim. In their eyes we are all the devil and need to be destroyed, or subjugated.

What's going on in the middle east right now, specifically in Iran, cannot be understood unless it is seen through the lens of their particular eschatology (beliefs about the end times). What the Iranians believe is that the coming of their Messiah, called the Mahdi, or the 12th Imam, is imminent. They believe what ushers in the Mahdis return is a series of great wars at the end of time. They also believe that Iran will be the spark to that flame. This is what Irans top general said recently:

"With having the treasure of the Holy Defense, Valayat (Guardianship of the Jurist) and martyrs, we are ready for a big war Of course this confrontation has always continued; however, since we are in the era of The Coming, this war will be a significant war

The Islamic republic is going to create a new environment on the world stage, and without a doubt victory awaits those who continue the path of martyrs. … we can defeat the enemy at its home and our nation is ready for jihad. Martyrdom has taught us to avoid wrong paths and return to the right path. Martyrdom is the right path, it’s the path to God"

http://glblgeopolitics.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/iran-official-big-war-means-mahdis-coming/

So what you have here, essentially, is a doomsday cult looking to acquire a nuclear weapon so that they can start a global war to usher in the coming of their Messiah. They believe that their Messiah will subjugate every nation under Islam and bring about worldwide sharia law.

So, everyone who thinks that the middle east is a problem we can straighten out with diplomacy, or instituting democratic reforms, is extremely foolish. It's the same with these sanctions; Iran is not going to break or change their mind. Their top general stated it in very clear terms; that they believe martyrdom is the only true path to God. It is reported that their leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, ascends to the sky (in the spirit) once a year to meet with the Mahdi, and that the Mahdi ordered him to continue the nuclear program because it would be what facilitates his coming.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/iran-preparing-now-for-armageddon/

If you look at Ahmadinejad's speech to the UN last week, it was all about the soon coming of the Mahdi:

http://flashtrafficblog.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/exclusive-ahmadinejad-gives-most-detailed-explanation-of-twelfth-imam-to-date-says-mahdi-will-soon-re
ign-over-whole-world/

This is why our policies in the Mideast fail again and again. Everything we try to do there ends up creating the exact opposite effect. Even when they themselves overthrow repressive governments, they end up electing even more repressive governments. It's not a problem we can solve. This is the way things are headed, and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. Their Messiah is most likely our Antichrist and regardless of how it all comes about, the end result was predicted over 2000 years ago;

There will be a one world government, one world economy and one world religion, with the Antichrist at the head. There will be some kind of global calamity in the near future, such as an economic crisis, or perhaps a war, involving Israel, and that is when the Antichrist will enter the world stage. He will come preaching peace and safety, and will head off the calamity by establishing a 7 year peace treaty between Israel and the rest of the world. At around the 3.5 year mark the Antichrist will take off his mask and declare himself to be God, and cause the entire world to worship him. Anyone who doesn't know Jesus Christ at this time will follow the antichrist. Anyone who takes the mark of the beast will be eternally condemned. If you're curious about what the mark of the beast is, it will probably be something like this:



The purpose of the mark is to control who can buy and sell. Anyone without the mark will be unable to participate in the economic system.

Don't count on believing later, or that you won't be deceived into taking the mark, because it will be under threat of death. Today is the day of salvation, so do not harden your heart because He is calling to you. The fact is that He loves you and is knocking on your door:

Revelation 3:20

Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

>> ^Stormsinger:

The problem with that claim is that the animosity goes back well before Pacepa's time. We overthrew the elected government of Iran in 1953, because they were threatening oil company profits. By 1967, the KGB was doing very little except throwing gasoline on a fire we'd already started and built up to four alarm status. It's not reasonable to try and put the blame on the KGB...it clearly belongs on our own government agencies, which have proven over and over again to be extremely shortsighted and unwilling to accept any ethical boundaries.

>> ^Diogenes:
hmmm, well the vid does present quite a few inaccuracies... but one thing i do agree with is that it's clearly apparent that the bulk of iranians, most heavily represented by supporters of their current islamic republic, begin their 'timeline of problems' at 1953, and by this i mean their blame of the united states
unfortunately, for both them and us, it shouldn't begin there... there's quite a bit of prior history that truly puts both the events of 1953 and the current situation in much better context - most notably the flawed notions: that the us 'put the shah in power' ... that 'mossadegh was popularly elected' ... and that 'the soviets weren't involved through iran's communist tudeh party or tpi'
leaving for work in a few, so don't really have the time to go into it atm... but if anyone's interested, i can go into far greater detail and give excellent sources, which might increase our understanding of this very muddled account of history


You sound distressed.

Allow me to "liberate" you.

hmmm, well the vid does present quite a few inaccuracies... but one thing i do agree with is that it's clearly apparent that the bulk of iranians, most heavily represented by supporters of their current islamic republic, begin their 'timeline of problems' at 1953, and by this i mean their blame of the united states

unfortunately, for both them and us, it shouldn't begin there... there's quite a bit of prior history that truly puts both the events of 1953 and the current situation in much better context - most notably the flawed notions: that the us 'put the shah in power' ... that 'mossadegh was popularly elected' ... and that 'the soviets weren't involved through iran's communist tudeh party or tpi'

leaving for work in a few, so don't really have the time to go into it atm... but if anyone's interested, i can go into far greater detail and give excellent sources, which might increase our understanding of this very muddled account of history

I think you both mean that they want an Islamic Republic in a country without corruption ...in which their votes are accurately counted.

>> ^Payback:
>> ^Farhad2000:
The people of Iran don't desire democracy, they desire a representative government where their votes count.
I think we are projecting the desire of democracy on them.

Huh? WTF do YOU think democracy means? Maybe if you said "western style" democracy...

NOTE TO ANYONE WHO GETS A MICROPHONE IN FRONT OF ONE OF THESE CUNTS:

keep it short. ask one impossible question such as "When did Iraq attack the United States of America?" or "How much oil is in Rwanda?" or "Does the Islamic Republic of Pakistan have nuclear weapons?" and then sit down.

PLEASE.

i don't know who's more stupid, bush, or the people who keep blowing every opportunity to throw a soundbite back at him.

"it was about preemptively engaging a threat that the international intelligence community and prominent liberal politicians agreed existed."

A few points wump:

(1) Pre-emptive action is illegal in international law for very good reasons. There are two major sources of international law - statutes and custom. There are no international instruments which allow pre-emptive strikes because it is very difficult to determine objectively whether a potential threat is legitimate or not. If pre-emptive strikes were legal then any state could justify aggressive action towards another state by reference to a perceived or potential threat. By justifying the illegal invasion of Iraq by saying that it was a pre-emptive strike against a perceived threat, a dangerous new precedent of customary international law was established. This means that any state can now legally justify aggression against another state by citing the illegal invasion of Iraq as an established precedent of international law.

(2) Many in the international intelligence community were very sceptical about the claim that Iraq had WMD's or that there was an Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq prior to the illegal invasion. It is also telling that a great deal of America's 'intelligence' about the Middle East comes directly from Israel - the only country directly threatened by Iraq's arsenal.

(3) In the UK most prominent liberal MP's, and the entire Liberal-Democrat party, were opposed to the invasion. Millions marched in the streets of London - and other parts of the UK - to condemn the illegal invasion of Iraq. These were the largest political demonstrations in British history.

"Iran will sweep through and kill half the population in attempt to take control and expand the Islamic Republic"

There is absolutely no evidence to show that Iran wishes to expand its borders into Iraq - the Iraqis wouldn't stand for it! Yes Iran supports a Shi'a controlled Iraq. But Iran does not want a civil war on its doorstep. Iran has made many efforts to work with the Americans - dating back to before the invasion - but America (due to the influence of AIPAC) has always shunned these advances.


And none of this changes the central message of this video - HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF IRAQIS ARE DEAD AS A DIRECT CONSEQUENCE OF AMERICA'S ILLEGAL INVASION!!!

The lesson of Vietnam is that we didn't fight to win and we allowed polititions to use the war for their own gain, and when we left it opened the door for the North Vietnamese to slaughter milions people. We still haven't learned that lesson and if we pull out, Iran will sweep through and kill half the population in attempt to take control and expand the Islamic Republic.

The Iraq war was not about liberty and freedom, it was about preemptively engaging a threat that the international intelligence community and prominent liberal politicians agreed existed. Liberty was supposed to be the side-effect, but I'm also saying we can't give it to them, they have to earn it.

I think you are partially correct Wumpus, yes, the Islamic Republic of Iran is definitely being hypocritical given their own policy on history.... probably their complaints are an attempt to galvanize one of their own disenfranchised factions in the fight against the Great Satan, I won't argue that.

But I also think that even if there aren't direct, literal parallels, there is enough in the general theme of the film that one doesn't need to read much into it. As for pointing out that the original graphic novel was published in 1998, you must keep in mind that much has been added to that original text... and much of that is what I am taking issue with. The major themes that are repeatedly beat out over and over again may have been presented in that original book but not to the extent that they are in the film.

Also, I think you bring up another salient point (that, no offense, undermines your argument) by noting the similar film from 1962, with its Cold War overtones. The story of the Spartans at Thermopylae is one of those tales that has been repeatedly hijacked to suit whatever current political message is relevant... post-Revolutionary Napoleonic France was noted for the appropriation of many stories of antiquity, notably, during Napoleon's campaigns in the East he was compared to not only Alexander, but also at times Leonidas (the proverbial defender of the West), see Jacques Louis David's (Napoleon's official portrait artist) Leonidas at Thermopylae
http://www.abcgallery.com/D/david/david33.html

Also, Hollywood is exactly where Iran should be looking... the film just did another 31.2 million dollars this weekend. People, lots and lots, and lots, of people are going to see this film. Even if they are uneducated, and have no idea that there are these overtones, they will still get the message. After all, the best propaganda is subliminal, the audience shouldn't know it is being fed this stuff... in fact, it is all the more effective if most of your audience doesn't really know what a Persian is (although I think you are underestimating the viewing audience by saying that no one knew what a Persian was before this story broke).

On top of that, the visuals that go with it, brutal violence, sex and death, are classic primal triggers of all the urges that one could hope to gain through a campaign such as this. Nothing psychologically solidifies a nation of people better than a group viewing of such materials... just look at the long human history of public executions, gladiatorial events, witch burnings, etc, etc. Nothing gets a group of people to rally around the flag better than having them witness the smiting of the enemy, it is a proven fact... and it works all the better if the audience does not realize it is happening and simply thinks they are there to be entertained!

First of all, Iranian [state-run] media comes out and says that it's part of a psychological war aimed at Iranian culture; setting aside their history of exporting terrorism and their nuclear program, what we do not hear about is the impact of Iranian culture. Since the Islamic Republic pretty much disavows history before the rise of Islam, the only real purpose of this statement would be to appeal to Persian nationalists in Iran to see America as antagonists.

Going back to the "clash of cultures", what part of our cultures is shown to be in conflict in this movie? Of course we can't make direct parallels, but how are supposed to view the Spartans and the Persians as representations of America and Iran? I think you're reading way too much into this, given that the movie is based on a graphic novel published in 1998, which was inspired by a movie on the same subject in 1962, which was noted for for its Cold War overtones. They are all still based in historical events, but are all works of dramatic fiction.

If Iran thinks there is a psychological war being waged against them, Hollywood is the last place they need to worry about. Lastly, before this story broke I don't think a single person who saw this movie saw Spartans vs. Persians to be Americans vs. Iranians...or even knew what Persia was.

Dark & twisted political comedy (as usual!) from Monkey Dust...

Omar, Abdul and Shafiq, the useless terrorists

Omar is a fanatical Islamist and a member of a terrorist organization he calls 'The International Revolutionary Jihad for the Liberation of the Islamic Republic of Great Britain'. His cell is based in West Bromwich in the West Midlands in the UK and is bent on "unleashing a reign of terror the like of which the world has only dreamed about in its foulest nightmares." Omar has recruited two teenage boys, Abdul and Shafiq, to carry out suicide bombings in the name of Allah, but through various comical misadventures, their plans always fail.

The effectiveness of their terror campaign is somewhat undermined by the fact that they seem to take their jihad for granted and treat it with the same offhandedness as the mundane details of their daily lives such as sport and television.

Omar is the privileged son of a wealthy family and a public schoolboy (he attended Charterhouse, but failed to get into Oxford or Cambridge and had to settle for Bristol). His vehement rhetoric calls for the swift and merciless destruction of the infidel, however he is careful to leave all the dangerous aspects of their activities to the two boys and keep himself out of harm's way as much as possible.

Abdul and Shafiq are thoroughly typical English youths in nearly every way. They are avid supporters of West Bromwich Albion F.C., spend a great deal of time watching mindless pop-entertainment television programmes such as Stars in Their Eyes and Pop Idol, and eat processed junk foods, i.e Bernard Matthews' turkey drumsticks with barbeque beans, or Findus' crispy pancakes. Their plotting often takes place in Shafiq's home where Shafiq's mother, Mrs. Khan, brings them drinks and snacks and seems untroubled by what they're up to: "You can leave your Jihad 'til after dinner!"

In the conclusion of Series 3, Omar sends Abdul and Shafiq to Iraq, while staying in the UK himself because "he couldn't change his dental appointment" but goes down the pub instead. The boys complain that terrorist training is "worse than PE". They meet a friend and fellow West Bromwich fan among the British soldiers who detain them before being captured and imprisoned in Abu Ghraib by American troops ("This is the best holiday I've ever had!").

It's possible the inspiration for this depiction of radical Islamicist ideology in the midst of otherwise normal modern British life comes from the detention of the so-called Tipton Three at Camp X-Ray. In Monkey Dust's sketches, Omar the ringleader is said to come from Tipton, where the jihad is taken "dead serious". - Wiki

I'm not sure, dag. I'm trying to figure out if this is what Scott meant by enough for some testing but not able to set up a cascade....

http://tinyurl.com/qsmrl

" Iranian scientists enriched a supply of uranium to a concentration of 3.5 percent, the Islamic Republic's nuclear program chief, Gholamreza Aghazadeh, said in Masshad before the president made his announcement at a packed auditorium in the holy city. That is enough to produce nuclear fuel, though an atomic weapon requires enrichment of almost 100 percent. Their comments were carried live by international broadcasters."

I wonder how Iran's response is counterpoint reaction to Bush's psych warfare. I'm starting to think Seymour Hersh got played by the administration as part of the psych-out. Iran is claiming a place at the table now. What now?