Spencer: Return of the Izod Ayatollah

The Iranian psychopath needs to be stopped in his tracks now. I can't recall any other incident where one nation has internationally called for the destruction of another state. In fact, it's pretty plain to see what he's all about but there aren't too many people who take him seriously and many others decide to misinterpret his calls for genocide, believing he's said some other garbage due to translation issues etc. It beats me.

Best to take him out as the Israelis took out the Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981. I only Israel and the US are better prepared this time because they need to be.

"...at a dinner in his honor hosted by five American liberal Christian organizations, the Mennonite Central Committee, the Quaker United Nations Office, the World Council of Churches, Religions for Peace and the American Friends Service Committee."
For every sadist, there is a masochist.

Why does the UN continue to give this little thug a forum to spew his BS? Ahmadinejad should be shunned by any civilized country or organization. How can any thinking person sit down to dinner with this odious man? It would be like having dinner with Hitler.

When Gov.Sarah Palin was uninvited for the protest against this thug, l knew the Democrats reached a new low.

this off topic but l read this piece about Palin from the Drudge report, this blurb is really from some comment poster, "Muhammud was a community organizer, and George Washington was Governor"

Why has the blessed Sheikh Osma Bin Ladens' accusations against the USA never been refuted? Why are they ignored and instead lies are attributed to his motives?

If you was wrongly accused by an angry neighbour of stealing his sheep, exploiting his land and killing his children, you would directly refute his accusations by saying, for example,

"I was 200 miles away on the day his sheep got stolen" or " we do not have military bases in their lands" or " We have never supported any of their despot dictators" or " Those pictures of dead babies apparently killed by my weapons and dogs are false and here is the proof...." Anyways you get my point.

If you was guilty you would sidestep his accusation and instead attribute another reason for his hatred to you, eg you would say

"ahhh he is mad and angry because he hates my freedom...."

You would say this despite the fact that your neighbor has given perfectly rational motives for his anger to you. And if you speak louder or say it enough times, peoples perception of you neigbour will be based on what you say not what he says.

There is a short film from Tehran by Hugh Sykes (actually audio and still photos) in which ordinary Iranians tell their true feelings about this nut. They do actually want to see the back of him, unless we are being deceived by selective quoting.
One quote:
"The world hates us because of the things he says"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7612319.stm

it does not really matter what the iranian people have to say about mahmood, he will be replaced with another mouthpiece for the mullahs, so long as they keep islam, nothing changes.

Jowen,
And if you are a victim of your neighbor, you would obviously attack and kill your siblings, cousins, children and other neighbors (like has been done to the Bahai).

You would conveniently forget that you had attacked your neighbor and stolen your land from your neighbor originally (like Palestine and North Africa), and raided his remaining land for slaves and raped his wife (shores of Europe) and stole his children and converted them to your religion (like the Turks did in the Balkans).

You will not ever forget, and let sleeping dogs lie, as your neighbor has done. You will seek cosmic justice for your ancestors, because, unlike your neighbor, who has moved on from the past and is enjoying life and making the world better, you obviously must choose revenge, even though you never actually suffered any personal loss, and those you wish to attack and kill are merely possible decendents of your evil mythical neighbor.

See a good description of the new Communist/Sandinista, President of the General Assembly, d'Escoto, by Ollie North here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,425581,00.html

Jowhen u reall suck,The Religion of peace sucks, watch these videos of the islamic barbarians at work. This is a evil that has to be destroyed and pretty fast.

http://www.bigducky.com/videos/beheading_videos/index1.htm

He is a maniac just another Hitler. US must be looking to eliminate this maniac as fast as possible. Iran is responsible for arming the most dangerous terror organisations of the world, now its been arming the taliban in afganistan.

There is absolutely no unity among the countries who are suffering at the hands of the islamic terrorists, unless all the countries come togather as a infiedel ummah it is a hopeless situation. With political correctness all the west will be doomed.

"If you was wrongly accused by an angry neighbour of stealing his sheep, exploiting his land and killing his children.."

Exactly. Just like the Muslims claiming rights to Israel that has belonged to the Jews long before Mo was born.

jowen,

You're boring.

Given that Iran is a "democratic republic" any and all Iranians who "want to see the back" of their beloved leader can do something about it.
They rose up against the shah. They can do it again. The problem is: they don't really mean what they say. They may not like THIS guy but they are perfectly content to be dominated by mullahs.

"If the United Nations today bore even the remotest resemblance to the international peacekeeping body it was founded to be, the line to denounce him would snake around the block, and Ahmadinejad would be arrested as soon as he set foot in New York."

The Justice Department in 1987 put President Kurt Waldheim of Austria on a list of people barred from entering the United States. It cited evidence that Mr. Waldheim had ''participated in activities amounting to persecution'' of Jews and others in Greece and Yugoslavia during World War II. Mr. Waldheim was the first head of state to be barred from entering the US.

Who cares about the UN? Why is Ahmadinjad even allowed to set foot in the US when a former Secretary General of the UN and an elected president of a sovereign nation was barred from US soil? Ahmadinejad himself has made threats against Israel. Why isn't he getting the Waldheim treatment, if only temporarily?

Israel is going to be forced to take action against big mouth and his bosses.

If Bush is going to do it he better hurry up, he's running out of time.

Arrest The Beasty Boy of Iran as soon as he steps off the plane onto American soil, or better on the plane over US territory, and taken directly to club Gitmo where he can make all the threats and speeches he wants.
The Mahdi wants some chaos, we can give him plenty.
Arrest Beasty Boy...tick off Mahdi, and Khomeini, a fair exchange...Your move Ayatollah...

And the Quakers honoring Beasty??? I'm shocked, I knew they were anti-war, but I never suspected they were pro despot...

Boy, It'd be a real shame if someone were to take their 7mm MAG and pop his head like a grape, wouldn't it?

Good thing I don't know anyone like that...

Posted by: jowen at September 22, 2008 7:46 AM

The non-Islamic West needs more usefully idiotic moderates like yourself to hasten the education of the eternal enemy that Islam presents.

Thanks, much.

JOJO asks: "
Why has the blessed Sheikh Osma Bin Ladens' accusations against the USA never been refuted? Why are they ignored and instead lies are attributed to his motives?"

Osama s motives simply involve his faith in the Qur'an which dictates Muslims must be conquerors and his hate for the Western world...Anyone with common sense recognizes his accusations as just that "accusations". Osama's violent actions are just following the Qur'an's instructions...

http://jihadwatch.org/archives/000041.php

Nuke 'em. Nuke Iran, then nuke Pakistan's nuclear facilities, and then tell the rest of the Muslim that if they ever, ever so much as say 'boo,' we'll nuke Mecca and Medina too. Kim Jong Il is nowhere to be seen right now, rumored to have suffered a stroke. Their government isn't going to do jack, and I seriously doubt China would mess with us for it. And if anyone wants to take us on, they'll have to mess with both and India, who will have our back for taking out Pakistan's nuclear facilities.

Are we really going to leave this to Israel to do?

Ach-Mad is just misunderstood. One American university recently invited him to speak so that they could get a clearer understanding of his heart felt controversial position of mass murder of Jews and infidels. He just cannot understand why Jews and infidels would have the audacity to object to that. Now he will try to make his case to the UN. He has most liberals and Muslims convinced but is having some difficulty with conservatives.

Nuke 'em. Nuke Iran, then nuke Pakistan's nuclear facilities, and then tell the rest of the Muslim that if they ever, ever so much as say 'boo,' we'll nuke Mecca and Medina too.

jdamn

I agree completely. Lest we forget, we are as vulnerable as Israel if Iran gets nukes. These articles explain.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/07/the-next-presidents-next-war/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/02/invisible-nuclear-threat/

Oh, we're the GREAT Satan. Of course they want us dead. If the Pakis had more than just a couple of nukes and a longstanding vendetta against India, they would be just as much of a threat to us.

I also live in fear of an EMP attack. We would be so screwed. But the Left doesn't understand that national security is an issue and that we would literally lose the logistical capacity to leave Iraq like they want.

The Muslim world can never have nukes. It's just not an acceptable possibility.

Thank God they're Muslim, so it's taking them forever. Seriously, they've had the technology since 2003. We had to invent nuclear technology and we produced nukes in less than five years. You know why? Because we had JEWS in our corner: Einstein, Oppenheimer, and Fermi. It's horrible that the Jews have been pushed out of every Muslim nation, but we're lucky that it happened now, aren't we?

If the Pakis had more than just a couple of nukes and NO longstanding vendetta against India... My bad.

"Iran is a tiny country" - Barack Obama

And led by a tiny man. Just view the above picture of Ahmadinejad. The lecturn comes up to his armpits; while he was probably standing on a New York City phone book.
Is it any wonder that he is "overcompensating" by wanting a nuke and yapping like a scared chihuahua dog?

Please support world peace: Human-Growth-Hormone-for-Ahmadinejad.com

Thank God they're Muslim, so it's taking them forever. Seriously, they've had the technology since 2003. We had to invent nuclear technology and we produced nukes in less than five years. You know why? Because we had JEWS in our corner: Einstein, Oppenheimer, and Fermi. It's horrible that the Jews have been pushed out of every Muslim nation, but we're lucky that it happened now, aren't we?

jdamn

Iran would probably screw up any hi-tech war they fight but with nukes, their screw ups could be a disaster. Even at high altitude, if they missed their target by thousands of miles, they would take out most satellites due to the radiation belt.

Jews are our very best friends and a great asset to this country. We owe them a lot. Our leaders are failing both our own citizens and Israel by not taking out Iran's nukes.

There is a 4th option not mentioned in the Times article. Which comes as no suprise.

Their often repeated option number one falls a little short of what needs to be done. While offering no comment about what Iran would still be capable of.

Option Two leaves us in a defensive position. It is unlikely the Israelis will let us know anything until we see their planes on Radar. Leaving us vulnerable to Iranian Counter measures.

Option Three is like doing nothing at all until it is too late to do anything.

Option number Four. The complete pealing of Iran's' defenses clearing the way for the systematic dismantling of their infrastructure. Thereby giving Ineedajob the chaos he so desires. Only in his own Home/Neighborhood, not ours.

Of course, If the Times were to get a whiff that the Government was going to do this. The Times, will have no problem letting everyone know about it. They seem to do things like that when their limited view of possibilities are not followed.

No Military option against Iran is going to be pretty and is not going to end with a limited strike of any kind. No matter who does it.

It will be much better to have even limited support by the Slow Jihad, on our terms. Rather than having to deal with the Fast and the Slow Jihad all at once. Especially for Israels sake.

I would not expect much help from Europe no matter what happens. Options 1,2,and 4 will have the Left in Europe enraged. So will the Muslims living there. Of course, the Muslim rage itself will force the Left in Europe to rethink their position really quick. Given Islams nature of not making much in the way of distinguishing between Infidels Political affiliations.

Option 3 would leave them all dancing at the demise of the Goose who laid the Golden Egg.

At the “World Without Zionism” conference held in Tehran in October 2005...the Iranian President again recalled Khomeini’s words: “the occupation regime of Qods [Jerusalem, or Israel] must be wiped off from the map of the world..."

This translation is incorrect.
First of all, there is no expression in Farsi that translates to "wipe off the map." Second, he was speaking of the Israeli government, and not the country itself. The correct translation is that the Israeli government should “vanish from the pages of time.” He had just finished talking about how this had happened with respect to the Shah’s regime in Iran and the regime in the Soviet Union. He was talking about regime change, not military obliteration of another country. Find someone who knows Farsi, and have them translate this: صفحه روزگار محو شود . It means vanish from the pages of time, and it was directed at the Israeli government.

He repeats this theme often. On Dec. 12, 2006, he said:

“As the Soviet Union disappeared, the Zionist regime will also vanish and humanity will be liberated.”:

http://www.president.ir/eng/ahmadinejad/cronicnews/1385/09/21/

Once again, he is talking about the Zionist regime vanishing as the Soviet Union did. As I remember, nobody wiped the Soviet Union from the map, it collapsed internally. That’s what Ahmadinejad is talking about in relation to Israel. He reiterated this yet again just recently, saying his problem is with the Israeli government, not the people:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/world/middleeast/19iran.html?_r=2&oref

Arabic media confirmed that Ahmadinejad was misquoted. From Al-Alam TV:

“Ahmadinezhad’s statements which, contrary to reports carried by the news agencies, did not contain any call for putting an end to Israel’s existence or erasing it from the map; instead they were an analytical reference to the bitter reality facing the Palestinian people who are defending, as he put it, the Islamic nation by proxy.” (1)

Everyone in the Middle East knows that Ahmadinejad was misquoted. It’s only American’s under the spell of their “free” media that believe it.

I do know of a couple on incidents where the term “wiped off the map” was used, but it was not by Ahmadinejad. One was by Lieutenant General John L. DeWitt, the Commanding General of the Western Defense Command in WWII, who said, “the Japs we will be worried about all the time until they are wiped off the face of the map.” (2) The other was from Israeli cabinet minister Meir Sheetrit, who said, “We must take a neighborhood in Gaza and wipe it off the map.” (3)

The only examples I find where this term was really used is from the US and Israel, not Iran.

1) BBC Monitoring International Reports, “Iranian Leader Did Not Call For ‘Erasing Israel From Map’ –Al-Alam TV, Oct. 28, 2005
2)virginialawreview.org/content/pdfs/93/1785.pdf
3)washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/10/AR2008021002727.html

"Ahmadinejad has threatened Iran’s foes with nuclear action: 'Today, the Iranian people is the owner of nuclear technology...'" -JW

Ahmadinejad did not threaten anyone with "nuclear action." The quote was trimmed in just the right way to suggest this to those who want to read this into the quote. Ahmadinejad said that Iran is the "owner of nuclear technology," and then talks about how threats will not work against Iran. You are expected to link the statment about "nuclear technology" with his statement about Iran not responding to threats, and to assume that he made a threat of "nuclear action." This is wrong. Ahmadinejad, as always, is talking about nuclear energy, and the statement about nuclear energy had nothing to do with Iran not responding to threats. This is clear when you include what he said just before "Today, the Iranian people is the owner of nuclear technology...":

“The Iranian nation believes that having access to the technology to produce fuel for peaceful purposes is its right. Among any crowd, in any city or in any village, people, either young or old, chant only one slogan. They underline their irrefutable right to have nuclear technology. Listen to the voice of the people of Bojnurd. [Chants of slogan, nuclear energy is our irrefutable right] We promote dialogue and adhere to law. We act according to law and our rights. We are for peace and stability. Peace and stability based on justice. Our nation has made its decision. It has passed through difficult passages with God's help.
Today, Iranian nation possesses nuclear technology...”

BBC Monitoring Middle East
August 2, 2006 Wednesday
“Iran's Ahmadinezhad says US, UK accomplice in Israeli ‘crimes’”

Notice how nuclear technology means the "technology to produce fuel for peaceful purposes"? Putting something in context makes a difference, no?

"Last July, he crowed that 'the big powers are going down. They have come to the end of their power, and the world is on the verge of entering a new, promising era.'" -JW

This entire speech to NAM was covered by the BBC here:

BBC Monitoring Middle East
July 29, 2008 Tuesday
"Iranian president says no guarantee for implementation of NPT"

You can see the BBC translation here:

http://www.zibb.com/article/3681034/Iranian+president+says+no+guarantee+for+implementation+of+NPT

Here is the part containing the JW quote above:

"But there are also desirable hopes and outlooks. Today, everybody has understood that the present situation will not last forever. We should put this period of time behind ourselves and enter a new era. The results of such a change have not been revealed.
Great powers are declining. The scope of their influence is reducing everyday. They are reaching the end of the era of their power. We are on the eve of a new era. The new era is marked with ethics, justice, abiding by law, observing human dignity, love, fraternity and respect for nations' rights. Aggression, occupation, injustice and prejudice are resented. Righteous and pure powers should regulate world affairs today. Everybody should feel relaxed and secure in the light of justice."

How evil! He said the "great powers are declining." Doesn't sound that evil to me. Sounds pretty prophetic in light of the Wall Street meltdown starting a couple weeks later. Read the whole speech.

BBC is anti semitic and anti American. Period. Sort of like NPR on steroids.

dave742

You say:
"This translation is incorrect. First of all, there is no expression in Farsi that translates to "wipe off the map." Second, he was speaking of the Israeli government, and not the country itself. The correct translation is that the Israeli government should “vanish from the pages of time.”

Gee, dave742, there won't be ocean where Israel once was after Iran takes care of it? Thanks for clearing that up. I really thought he literally meant there would be a hole in the map in the perfect outline of what used to be Israel. I'm so relieved now, he merely meant the Israeli government would be exterminated and the surviving non-Muslims turned into hardcore dhimmis forced to walk in the gutter when passing a Muslim, as ascribed by Sharia.

Seriously dave742, your a fricking idiot.

http://bravenewsworld.blogspot.com

Max Publius:
"he merely meant the Israeli government would be exterminated"

No. He meant that there should be regime change. The are ways to promote change without "exterminating" a government, but maybe you don't realize this. Do you know what Ahmadinejad wants in relation to the Israeli government and the Palestine situation in general? Democracy! He explained this in the 60 Minutes interview with Mike Walace, but the "democracy" part was edited out. Didn't fit the demonization script. See here:

http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/09/report-60-minutes-cut-ahmadinejads-statement-solution-is-democracy-in-israelpalestine.html

If you don't believe the text, you can see the unedited interview here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onNzrNEFs1E

So he wants democracy. How deliciously evil!!

"Seriously dave742, your a fricking idiot"

I guess everyone can't be an intellectual like yourself.

“If you want to have good relations with the Iranian people in the future, you should acknowledge the right and the might of the Iranian people, and you should bow and surrender to the might of the Iranian people. If you do not accept this, the Iranian people will force you to bow and surrender.” JW quote of Ahmadinejad

This is somewhat accurate. Wow. Ahmadinajad was talking to a crowd in Ardabil, Iran. Although the quote is accurate, it is not quite in context. Here is a more complete quote:

"But the last thing I want to say is about the nuclear issue. Praise be to God, you are abreast of developments on the nuclear issue. Mr Kofi Annan contacted me a few nights ago, saying: It's true that they've issued a resolution, but don't get upset. Give your answer to the Europeans' package. I said to him: We're very interested in talks. We're interested in having problems solved through talks. We support peace and calm. We're opposed to tension. But it seems that these gentlemen have misinterpreted our stances. They thought that they could create a truncheon by the name of a resolution and then say: Accept this! If you don't accept it, we will condemn you. I said to him: You know that the Iranian nation is a dear nation. Faced with bullying, the Iranian nation [inviting the audience to respond] accepts or doesn't accept? Accepts or doesn't accept? [Crowd shouts: Doesn't accept.] Doesn't accept. Let them hear this! The Iranian nation doesn't accept bullying. We like talks. [Crowd chants: Nuclear energy is our self-evident right] See for yourself. They haven't left any dignity for the Security Council. Every time they hold talks with us, they say some bullying thing. They say: If you don't accept what we say, we will take you to the Security Council and condemn you there. Well, of course the Security Council is a tool in your hands. A tool in your hands has no dignity. It has no legality to want to make decisions.
But I want to say something. I told them that they had done wrong. They had shaken our confidence in them. It became apparent that they were not trying to solve the problem. They only aimed to start an argument. Well, they do their own thing and we will do ours. We will make our views known on the designated date which we have announced. We are a law-abiding nation. We have certain views which we will express. But I told him our views are based on our commitments to defend the irrefutable rights of Iranian nation. And in Iran no-one has the right to forfeit even an iota of this nation's irrefutable right [Crowd cheering]. But the important point [Crowd interrupting with chants]. Please let me continue. With God's help this country has been able - [stopping in the middle of his speech and addressing someone in the crowd] Well tell him. Very well. See what he says. With God's help this country has been able to acquire a complete fuel cycle for peaceful purposes. We have obtained it ourselves. This is in the minds of our young people. No-one can take it away from us. This is in the minds and thoughts of our young people. We possess this and would like to use it for peaceful purposes. They know it. They know it. They cannot harm this country from outside. They are quite aware that their rhetoric, angry postures and mad faces and their so-called resolutions aimed at threatening us will be ineffective. They are hoping to create a rift among the unified people of this nation from inside the country.
Of course, be vigilant! But I say to them: Know the Iranian nation! The Iranian nation is beyond this sort of thing. And you, for your part, if you would like to have good relations with the Iranian nation in the future, recognize the Iranian nation's right. Recognize the Iranian nation's greatness. And bow down before the greatness of the Iranian nation and surrender. If you don't accept [to do this], the Iranian nation will later force you to surrender and bow down."

BBC Monitoring Middle East
August 16, 2006 Wednesday
Iranian president's speech in Ardabil

Once again, notice how he keeps repeating that they want nuclear technology for "peaceful purposes."
Ahmadinejad was once again talking about threats to Iran, and how nations such as the US are working to cause dissent within Iran. He also talks about countries needing to recognize Iran's right to nuclear power. At the end of the speech, his rhetoric did become overblown somewhat, but this is not a big deal when looked at in context. He is not talking about attacking anyone, but about defending his nation, and his hetoric is in response to defending Iran.

Xero you made me laugh! "...overcompensating ...wanting a big nuke and yapping like a chihuahua."

That must be it. He's the jerk who wants a roaring red race car so he'll look like the man he's not.

dave742,

I rarely call and idiot an idiot, and of course I mean it symbolically, as your logic is pure sophistry, whether naive or intentional.

Actions speak louder than words. Seemingly rational statements by totalitarian thugs are a dime a dozen. Listen to Castro, Chavez, etc, ramble on for hours to their captive audiences. They've fooled millions.

If Ahmadinajad wanted democracy, he'd impliment it a home first. Iranians can only vote for mullah-approved candidates when they can vote at all. Bahais and Christian converts are mercilessly persecuted, and Ahmadinajad is pushing for the death penalty for people who leave Islam. He funds Hezbollah and every manner of terrorism. Now you think he wants an orderly election so Muslims can rule Israel with a fair and humane hand? Are you for real? He means exterminate, eliminate, and destroy. That is beyond obvious.

"Once again, notice how he keeps repeating they want nuclear power for energy..." posted by Dave742.
yes - he repeats that often, and he also repeats statements about wiping out Jews and how the Holocaust never happened, and how "the big powers" are going down, down, down. These are mostly stements his followers want to hear; you included right? He also made a complete ass of himself on a US college campus last year, bringing outright laughter at some of his ridiculous repetitions. I used to have a toy when I was a child that would repeat 3 or 4 phrases every time you pulled its string, too. It probably had as much of a soul and intellect as this ape, if not more.

Max Publius:
"If Ahmadinajad wanted democracy, he'd impliment it a home first. Iranians can only vote for mullah-approved candidates when they can vote at all"

My point was that Ahmadinejad's position regarding the Israel-Palestine issue is to have a vote, not to attack Israel with nuclear weapons. Your position is that this position can't be sincere, because Iran doesn't have a democracy. Iran, however, does have a democracy. It is true that candidates must be faithful to Islam to qualify as a candidate, according to Principle 119 of the Constitution. I expect that this requirement reflects the will of the population. If a referendum was held on Principle 119, I think it would pass. There is much protest among reformists about how strict the vetting process is. In the most recent elctions, only 504 of the 825 reformist that registered to vote survived the vetting process. The vetting process is likely too restrictive, and I am sure I would disagree with it, but it is not as if reformists cannot run. 504 reformists ran for office. They won 46 seats.

Because candidates for office in Iran must be loyal to Islam does not prevent Ahmadinejad from backing free alections in Palestine. This is certainly a different position than nuking Israel.

dave742,
The only people I know of who can be so informed on a topic, yet skew it so unbelievably, are paid lobbyists or "true believers" i.e., committed ideologs who won't be swayed by even a mathematical proof. Which one are you? Even your apparent politeness is a transparent fraud.

There are equivalent people like you who say the Nazis were pro-feminist, pro-choice, pro-environmentalists, anti-capitalist exploitation, and "progressive," all of which has a grain of truth, yet the selected parts don't tell us much about the whole.

Ahmadinajad is committed to creating chaos in the world in order to bring back his mahdi. He is connected with Shia groups who espose this. Without the basic human right to choose one's own religion without fear of being murdered, how can anyone take Muslim opinion seriously?

Max Publius:
"Which one are you"

I am not paid by anyone, and I have not seen any "mathematical proof" of anything. I need to be convinced by reality, not some distorted or fabricated quotes and baseless accusations. I corrected the quotes on this thread. The real quotes are no big deal to me. You say I can't beleive what Ahmadinejad says, but should instead look at his actions. I don't see that he has actually done a single thing that can be classified as aggresive, and Iran in general has not attacked anyone in a thousand years. Iran really doesn't sound that scary to me. In response to me pointing out that Ahmadinejad wants an election in Israel, you say this can't be true because some reformists were disqualified in Iran (even though 500 were allowed to participate). This doesn't make any sense to me either. It does makes sense to me that Iran will not allow the system that their country is based on to be threatened any more than the people in power in the US would allow communists to take power, even if the communists had the support to do so.

"Without the basic human right to choose one's own religion without fear of being murdered, how can anyone take Muslim opinion seriously?"

People in Iran are allowed to choose their religion. All religious minorities are even guaranteed a seat in the legislative body, including Jews and Christians. There are 25,000 Jews in Iran, and they seem to like it there. They don't seem to be concerned about being murdered:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0427/p01s03-wome.html

You can't even pay the Jews in Iran to move to Israel. You would think that if Jews were afraid of being murdered, they wouldn't turn down 10k to move to Israel:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/939220.html

The things you say are simply baseless accusations, and are not related to reality.

From the Haaretz article: Jewish schools are FORBIDDEN, teaching Hebrew is PROHIBITED, Jewish women are SUBJECTED to the same draconian modesty laws forced on their Muslim counterparts, while Jewish conscripts to the army are routinely HUMILIATED and trusted only with lowly, MENIAL tasks.

dave742

What is your vested interest in defending Ineedajob? A rather devout Muslim who would follow the words and deeds of Allah quite religiously.

Lying to Infidels would be one of Allah's laws he would make sure to comply with.

Are you a Muslim or just incredibly naive?

You have quite a journey ahead in your efforts to get your mind around the inverted nature of Koranic thinking. Of course, you could also be suffering from trying to get out from under it.

dave742
I had a beautiful response for your absurd apologetics for Iran's mullacracy that even normal Iranians abhor, but somehow it got held from posting by the moderator, saying I was a first time poster.
Anyway, it looks like others have taken to giving you a good whooping for your troubles. I'll just post one link as response to your sickening claim that Iran has freedom of religion:

http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=2972

dave742: Having read your posts I had to step in here. First, you suffer from a very bad case of moral equivalency reasoning. Iran is a terrorist regime which actively supports such things as the deliberate killing of civilians and which does not follow the rules of war in sundry ways which decent nations observe. Second, Iran does not have a democracy. It has a sham democracy. Huge difference. When political parties are disallowed unless vetted by the government, true press freedom doesn't exist, a secret police is omnipresent and non-Muslims are not allowed to run for office, what you have is a farce posing as a democracy. You know this or should know it. Third, among the many lunacies that Ahmadinejad has engaged in is Holocaust denial. The Holocaust is one of the most documented crimes in history. Anyone denying it is a miscreant and should never be taken seriously as someone possessed of decency and insight. Certainly such a person is not worthy of being defended.

These three points should suffice in directing your uninformed and woeful thought processes to greener pasture. If these points I made above are not enough to steer you on your way to clearer thinking, then stating three or four more will simply be wasted upon you. As of present you remain nothing more than a banal apologist for terror and barabarism. Think this one through, pal.

From the article:

"The UN General Assembly’s new president, leftist priest and old Sandinista Miguel d’Escoto, will clink glasses with Ahmadinejad at a dinner in his honor hosted by five American liberal Christian organizations, the Mennonite Central Committee, the Quaker United Nations Office, the World Council of Churches, Religions for Peace and the American Friends Service Committee."

Truly a Dinner of the Damned.

There would be only one conceivable reason why any Christian leader worth their salt would want to be in the same room as Ahmadinejad.

That is: to confront him with a massive J'Accuse!! With a cry of "Thou wicked Haman!'

To read out, relentlessly, a list of all the names of those Persian Jews, and Persian Christians, and Zoroastrians, and Bahai'i, and other Un-Islamic Persons, who have been harassed, abused, slandered, persecuted, arrested, and murdered, down through the awful years since the Ayatollah first came to power; concluding with the names of the latest batch of Persian converts from Islam to Christianity, now facing execution for the 'sin' of not wanting to be Muslim anymore, and to say, to Ahmadinejad, loud and clear, 'Repent! Cease from wickedness! Let My People Go!!".

Somehow, I doubt that anyone there is going to have the spiritual and moral courage to do *that* - to confront Ahmadinejad head on, as the Bishop of Otranto confronted the jihad boss who had just invaded his hometown, to summon him to repentance.

And if they do not, if they sit there and smile and listen to his nonsense without challenging him, and thus tacitly consent to his murderous plans, then I could find it in my heart to wish upon that dinner party the doom that C S Lewis imagined in his novel "That Hideous Strength", chapter 16, 'banquet at Belbury':

'Qui Verbum Dei contempserunt, eis auferetur etiam verbum hominis' - 'They that have despised the word of God, from them shall the word of man also be taken'.

To any new poster who may be a little disoriented by their first encounter with typical Muslim 'spin' as presented by 'jowen' (re. Al Qaeda's supposed grievances vis a vis America) and by 'dave742' (claims of mistranslation, Ahmadinejad doesn't really mean any harm to the Jews of Israel, he just wants 'regime change', the Iranian nuke project is purely for peaceful purposes, etc), I have two links that may provide a suitable antidote.

The first concerns what Al Qaeda has said to the West, as opposed to what they say within the Islamosphere. There is a glaring dichotomy.

http://cicentre.com/ctstudies/Document/Two_Faces_of_Al_Qaeda.html

I commend to people Raymond Ibrahim's book, 'The Al Qaeda Reader', which presents what Al Qaeda says 'in-house', to other Muslims. It becomes clear that the language of grievance, used toward the West (a sample of which you may see in the post by 'jowen') is merely a ploy - an attempt to press the West's 'guilt buttons' and thus to demoralise and weaken.

The second concerns the religious, political, historical background to Ahmadinejad's pronouncements about Israel, and 'Zionists' = Jews. It is Andrew Bostom's scholarly overview, 'Shiite Iran's Genocidal Jew-Hatred'.

http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=7134DF10-DD44-40D0-B899-CCDC7F3D3B8C

Read this article and you will understand the complete speciousness of what dave742 is saying.

But you might also like to consult a January 26 2008 op-ed in the Iranian daily Kayhan, by the paper's editor, Hossein Shariatmadari, which is a veiled call to Muslims worldwide to attack Jews everywhere (to be perfectly frank: when people like Shariatmadari say 'Zionists', it is simply code for 'Jews' - and don't let dave742 persuade you otherwise).

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019723.php#comments

One should reflect on the fact that on a Friday evening in Canada not so very long ago, a Muslim man assaulted a teenage Jewish girl as she stood on a railway platform with her two friends. As he attacked, he declared "I'm Muslim and hate Jews!'

One should also remember that long, long before the Jewish state of Israel was re-founded, a Muslim cleric in Morocco incited a pogrom against the dhimmi Jews in Touat; among the slogans he used was this - "Love of the Prophet requires hatred of Jews'.

Ahmadinejad may pretend that he wants 'justice' for the 'Palestinians'. We must remember that 'justice' for someone like him is defined by sharia, according to which no non-Muslim is entitled to live except as a dhimmi near-slave to despotic Muslim masters. The local Arab Muslims - and by extension, all pious Muslims everywhere, being total supremacists, are unendurably humiliated and oppressed by the mere fact that the Jews in Israel, Jews whose proper place (in Muslim eyes) is to be under the Muslim boot, currently enjoy full sovereignty and freedom.

Justice in Islamspeak = sharia, or something in accord with sharia

Peace in Islamspeak = Muslims totally dominant over non-Muslims; all non-Muslims either dead, or eking out an existence of total degradation, humiliation and insecurity, the Muslim boot planted firmly on their faces.

One must read Mr Ahmadinejad's speech, cited in dave742's postings, with those two definitions of 'peace' and 'justice' firmly kept in mind.

Why would anyone from the Mennonite church welcome him or have dinner with him? They're supposed to be pacifists. Do they think being nice will have any effect on that psychopath?

PraiaFlamego:

I was responding to the claim that you are not allowed to practice any religion you want. So you change the subject and say that Jews are discriminated against. Yes, they are, and this is wrong. It must not be that extreme, however, if you can’t pay them to move to Israel. I will make one comment about how women are “SUBJECTED” to “draconian modesty laws.” It is true that women must wear a scarf on their head, but this is not exactly draconian. Here is an example:

http://static.flickr.com/37/74969808_221061b1ac.jpg?v=0

Not exactly a burka. Do you have any comment about the modesty squads in Israel?:

thenational.ae/article/20080908/FOREIGN/818255716/1011/rss

haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1013163.html

flowerknife_us:

I am not a Muslim. I am an atheist American. I prefer to deal in the truth rather than crude demonization attempts. That is how I differ from you.

Max Publius:

So now we have moved on from the charge that Ahmadinejad wants to nuke Israel to charge that there is no freedom of religion. I looked into your case of Hamid Pourmand. Some reports say was dishonorably discharged from the army and charged with proselytizing. Even if this was true, trying to convert people to Christianity is different than choosing to be a Christian. I wish that proselytizing was illegal here. It would stop people from knocking on my door trying to get me to convert. I don’t believe the charge is accurate, however. Iranians don’t have a problem with Christians or Jews, since they are also “people of the book,” and Iranians believe that Christians are going to heaven just like they are. They just don’t believe that Christ was the Lord, but simply a prophet. Anyway, Pourmand was charged with belonging to a political group while being in the Army, which is illegal:

iranfocus.com/en/iran-general-/iran-pastor-in-jail-over-politics-not-religion-judiciary.html

He was sentenced to 3 years, but won an appeal. He was released on June 1, 2005.

Wellington:

I am unable to respond to your long list of baseless accusations. It is much easier to rattle off baseless things off the top of your head than it is to actually look into these things. If you want to bring up specific cases or issues, I will respond. I will respond to this:

“Ahmadinejad has engaged in is Holocaust denial”

I cannot tell for sure, because you don’t like specifics, but maybe you are referring to this quote:

“They have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a principle above God, religions and the prophets.”

This. Like the above quotes, is partially misquoted, and partially taken out of context. Regarding the word “myth,” there is some question as to whether this is the correct word, and that a better translation is “legend”. According to the American Iranian Council, Ahmadinejad used the word “afsaneh,” which they claim means “myth, untrue, false, without factual base.” (1) Most other sources, however, translate the word “myth” as “Ostureh.” A writer at Tel Aviv University translates “Afsaneh” as “legend,” and specifically in the context of a book that claims “that the Holocaust was an instrument… created to justify the establishment of the Jewish state.” (2) This is how Ahmadinejad was using the word, especially when looked at in context. Let’s look at the context. He asked two questions, here’s the first:

“The first question is that where have these people, who are ruling Palestine today and allowing themselves to do whatever they want to and murdering, imprisoning local people and making them homeless, come from?… Where were they living until one or two thousand years ago? Why are they allowed to impose their rule and have the right to determine fates, whilst the people who have been living there for hundreds and even thousands of years don’t have the right to determine their fate. The Islamic Republic of Iran’s solution is very clear. The Iranian nation is saying that the only fundamental way to resolve the Palestinian issue is for all the indigenous residents to take part in a referendum and express their views about their government and the future of Palestine.”

Here’s the second:
“The second question I asked was: If you are telling the truth about you murdering and burning 6m Jews during World War II in gas chambers - and apparently you are telling the truth and emphasizing on your claim because you arrest, condemn and imprison anyone and even your scholars who are against this issue….My question is that why does the innocent Palestinian nation have to pay the price of this heinous crime you committed? Why are you using those killings as a pretext to come to the heart of the Islamic world and dear Palestine and impose a phoney Zionist regime on the innocent people of that land? If you have committed the crime, then you have to pay the price.” (3)

These are two fair questions that have never been addressed, because it is impossible to come up with an honest answer that makes any sense.
The issues that are brought up in these questions are what is central to what Ahmadinejad is saying. The main issue is not that Ahmadinejad is saying the Holocaust is a fabrication, but that it has been used to take over another peoples land. Similar to what the U of Tel Aviv writer says when he uses the word “Afsaneh,” Ahmadinejad believes that the Holocaust has been used as an instrument to create the state of Israel. I agree. I do not believe Israel would exist today had the Holocaust not have happened. Ahmadinejad was not saying that the Holocaust was a “myth” in the sense of being untrue, but that the Holocaust was being raised to mythical proportions. This is why he says that in Israel the Holocaust has been raised to a greater importance than even their belief in God. Also, he repeatedly alludes to the fact that the Holocaust may have happened, but he wonders why, if it did, it isn’t the perpetrators of the crime that are the ones to make the reparations. I think he has a good point.
Even if the word used was “myth,” I think it is important to realize what the definition of that word is. It does not automatically mean “an untrue story.” Merriam Webster’s first definition is “a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon.” (4) Only later definitions bring up the idea of “an unfounded or false notion.” It is in this sense that Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner of Brown University uses the word when he says “The myth of Holocaust and redemption is valid in Israel, where it is part of the civil religion by which the people there explain themselves to themselves.” (5) This Jewish scholar is not denying that the Holocaust happened when he uses the word “myth” in connection with it, but he is using the word according to its definition.

Do you think Israel should be bombed because an Israeli scholar used the word “myth” in connection with the Holocaust?

1) amirahmadi.org/Writing/Articles/AhmadinejadIsrael-01-05-06.pdf
2) tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2005/menashri.html
3) BBC Monitoring Middle East, “Iran’s Ahmadinezhad rejects Jewish Holocaust as ‘myth’,” Dec. 14, 2005. A copy can be found here:
homelandsecurityus.com/iranfull
4) m-w.com/dictionary/myths
5) Newsweek, “Debate Over the Holocaust,” March 10, 1980, by Kenneth L. Woodward with Eloise Salholz

dumbledoresarmy:
You bring up a JW article that refers to an article written in the Iranian newspaper Kayhan. Here is the entire article:

Text of report by Hoseyn Shari'atmadari entitled: "Enemy's shield" published by hardline Iranian daily Keyhan website on 26 January

"It is shameless for the Zionists to carry out genocide in Gaza by massacring Palestinian women, men and children, and cutting electricity, water, fuel, medicine and food supply to the area. Not only the Zionists, America and their European allies should be ashamed of these crimes, the heads of some Islamic countries should be even more embarrassed by the crimes.
Egypt should be feeling guilty for insisting on the degrading Camp David Accords and blocking Al-Rafah passage. The undignified and pathetic heads of Bahrain and Emirates should feel ashamed by awarding prizes to the killer of the oppressed Palestinian people during his recent visit to the region. The Saudi dynasty, which gives itself the title of the servant of the two holy shrines, should also feel shameful for not being concerned about the crimes of the Zionist atheists against Muslims and their aggression against the Palestinian lands.
Isn't it true that many sensitive centres of the Zionists, Americans and some pro-Israel European countries are in the hands of Muslims? Isn't it true that there is easy access to many Zionists in different parts of the world? Therefore which human and legal rule can prevent an attack against such centres and individuals? Why should one allow the savage Zionists and blood-shedding Americans to decide where the battlefield is? Why should one allow the Zionists to put under siege the oppressed Palestinian sisters and brothers, along with their children, in their own land and to open fire on them day and night and kill them in big numbers.
America and the Zionists' European allies should know that supporting Israel's crimes will be costly for them. When they realize that they should pay the cost of their support for the Zionists by their own wealth and lives, they would revise their policy in defending the savage Zionists.
May the soul of our late imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeyni] rest in peace who said that one day some residents of an area went to late Modarres [a cleric who opposed Reza Shah] and complained that the servants of a brutal feudal had beaten them up. Martyr Modarres asked them why they accepted to be beaten up so that they would have to come and complain. Modarres told them that they should beat up the agents of oppression so that they would go and complain. The late imam had also said that if each Muslim would pour a bucket of water, the result would be a flood that would wash Israel away.
America and its allies have been labelling every liberating movement against the Zionist occupation as terrorist. They also punish any country that would support such movements. Why shouldn't Muslim nations attack the supporters of the Zionists in nooks and corners of the world?
According to a jurisprudence view, which is credible among both Shi'is and Sunnis, one could attack those who are used by the enemy as a shield during the war. Therefore, if the rulers of some Islamic governments prevent Muslim nations from attacking the Zionists and obstruct assistance to the oppressed Palestinian people, one could remove such enemy shields."
BBC Monitoring International Reports
January 26, 2008 Saturday
IRAN HARDLINE NEWSPAPER CALLS ON MUSLIMS TO "ATTACK ZIONISTS' SUPPORTERS"

In this article, Shari'atmadari asks that if it is OK for Zionists to massacre Palestinians on Israeli land, it should also be OK for Muslims to attack supporters of Zionism in Muslim controlled areas. He says nothing about attacking civilians, which I would disagree with. If Muslims were to attack those actually responsible for allowing Israeli crimes to continue decade after decade, I think the morality of such attacks would at least be debatable, depending on the specifics. Notice that the object of such attacks than Shari'atmadari mentions more than any other are the governments of Muslims nations who are Israeli puppets. He is bringing up the question of attacking Muslim governments when they are “enemy shields” of Israel. This is his main point, and what the title of the article refers to. My support or non-support of this tactic would very much depend on the specifics. I would support, for example, Muslims overthrowing the Saudi or Egyptian government.

dave742
I suppose you would believe Nazi concentration camp photos of Jews making arts and crafts and going to school evidence that the Nazis were not genocidal anti-semites?
I finished with the debate on whether Ahmadinejad wishes to use any method available to eliminate Israel. BTW, I never said he would use nukes, you did. I think he would prefer a conventional bloodbath, so the land can be used afterward for dar al Islam. You lost this debate.

I moved on to your assertion that there is freedom of religion in Iran. There is a perfectly good reason for the relative safety in Iran for Christians and Jews (and Zoroastrians) compared to other religions, like Baha'i. They are mentioned in Islamic texts as "protected" by dhimmi laws. So what. The dogmatic Ahmadinejad is just a doctrinaire Islamist. That means it is all the more likely he will impose strict Sharia, and the horrendous dhimmi laws. As for other religions to "protected", try being Buddhist in Iran. Or try being atheist.

Your defense of Muslim "Jim Crow" laws as a satisfactory solution to slavery or extermination is disgusting. You lost this debate also.

Max Publius:
I am sad that I keep losing debates. I will keep trying.

"As for other religions to 'protected', try being Buddhist in Iran."

According to this article in the Hindu, the fastest growing religions in Iran are Hinduism and Buddhism:

"Iran's fastest-growing faith seems to be Hinduism of the New-Age guru variety. (Buddhism comes a close second)."

http://www.hindu.com/mag/2006/06/11/stories/2006061100030100.htm

Hinduism and Buddhism must have a very strong attraction if people are becoming Hindus and Buddhists in the face of certain death. Very brave.

Max Publius:
I looked into your case of Hamid Pourmand, who was arrested in Iran for being part of a political group while being an officer in the army. It is also illegal to do so in the US:

"Military Members MAY NOT...serve in any official capacity or be listed as a sponsor of a partisan political club":

http://www.laughlin.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123078250

Is our country as evil as Iran? Oh no!

dave742,
So then what is your motivation for defending the undefendable? Do you enjoy being a devil's advocate? Are you a student of forensics, just honing your skills? You're giving us good practice too, because everyone needs to remember why they know what they know.
Your mock humility aside, you've done an admirable job of disengenuously sidestepping and obfuscating massive evidence to contradict your reasoning. Even your own links repudiate you, but somehow you gloss past that.

As for your article on growing religions:

This is not a study, but an impression, and it is not doctrinaire Hinduism or Buddhism, but New Ageism, hidden behind closed doors, while still maintaining the lie of practicing Islam.

Every people are described as "proud" and "hard working" or "family oriented", so of course Iranian women are not "servile, submissive or obsequious". Neither are Saudi Salafist women or burkaed Afghani women, are they? Only 1950's white American women can be called that, don't you know the rules? Did you lose your PC playbook?

When comparing cultures, you seem to talk in relative terms, rather than using a baseline for all. That is your failure, which appears to be intentional, in my opinion. You can't really be that self-deceiving. It's not humanly possible.

dave742: Noticed you didn't even bother to treat with two of my points, the first being the contention that Iran is a terrorist state and cannot be compared to decent polities like Israel, Britain, and America lest one fall into the significant error of moral equivalency thinking, which you're guilty of in spades. My second point which you ignored is that Iran does not have a democracy but only a farce of one. What's the matter, buddy, can't you step up to the plate and deal with these contentions of mine? Respecting my third point, which you did address, you went the long way 'round the barn to come to the erroneous (and silly) conclusion that little Adolf, who is the President of Iran, is not a Holocaust denier (never mind, though, that he'd sure like another one). Uh-huh.

Oh, yeah, you can't even count very well. You wrote that I put forward a "long list of baseless accusations." I put forward three points. That hardly constitutues a long list unless counting to three is a chore for you.

Max publius:
"you've done an admirable job of disengenuously sidestepping and obfuscating massive evidence to contradict your reasoning" -Publius

Projection. Every time I clearly show something that is said here to be false, the goalposts simply get moved:

Ahmadinajad wants to "wipe Israel off the map"!

Oh, he doesn't? He wants democracy?

I know! Iran doesn't have democracy themselves!

Oh, they do?

I know! But the disqualify candidates!

Oh, 500 reformists were still allowed to run, and 46 won seats?

I know, there is no freedom of religion!

What, there is? And they are even guaranteed a seat in the Majlis? And Jews like it there? And they cannot even be paid to go to Israel?

I know! they make Jews wear "draconian" clothing!

Oh, so it's only that they have to wear a scarf, and that chick in the picture looks pretty hot.

I know! I have this story that says a guy is in jail because he is a Christian!

Oh, that's not why he's in jail? He's actually in jail because he was a military officer and belonged to a political group? Something that is also illegal in the US?

I know! Even though Jews and Christians don't have much of a problem in Iran, I bet those Buddhists do!

Oh, they don't? Buddhism and Hinduism is growing in Iran?

I know! But they have to hide it!

My Lord.

"obfuscating massive evidence " -Publius

I have addressed every specific point in this thread, and showed that it was false. I did not address every baseless accusation, because I don't have the time. If you would like to bring up another specific, I will address it.

dave742
Your deception is self-evident. You're making a fool of yourself now. I suspect an actual Iranian would be embarrassed by your shameful defense of Ahmadinejad and the mullahs, and would evicerate you even further. Your like the knight in the Monty Python movie, hopping on one leg, waiting for more swipes of the sword. You're a glutton for punishment, that's for sure.

You have not addressed the evidence, you have merely parsed it the way a piss-poor scientist would determine a bubblebee's flight is physically impossible, therefore it doesn't exist.

Iran is a signatory to many treaties. It must keep up appearances, so it is not unexpected to find widely publicized cases with facets that the mullahs can latch on to, in order to fool the world, which is full of vile people like youself.

As far as our military is concerned, I was in it, and the code of conduct is not remotely similar to the Iranian's used to prosecute this Christian. I or you could find many similar cases in a 20 second Internet search, but I don't think it would do any good with you. You're not here to listen. Hopefully others would follow this thread find something worthwhile in it though.

Wellington:

It is clear that you don't know what a baseless accusation is. Here is the first point you say that I didn't address:

"Iran is a terrorist state"

This is a baseless accusation, wellington. A baseless accusation is when you rattle off charges without saying anything about why you make the charge, much less what evidence there is for the charge. I believe that the US is the largest terrorist state that ever existed. I will not simply make the charge without giving solid evidence for why I think so. (Do you know which nation is the only one to be convicted by the World Court for unlawful use of force, aka terrorism? The US. They were ordered to pay Nicaragua reparations for their terrorism, and refused.) Why is Iran a terrorist state? Can you say anything more about this other than "Iran is a terrorist state"? You say that Iran "actively supports such things as the deliberate killing of civilians". How do they do this? By supporting Hezbollah? Hezbollah does not deliberately kill civilians. Hamas has done so on occasion. They do so as a tactic to resist occupation. Do you know how suicide bombing started in Palestine? I am sure you know about how Baruch Goldstein broke into a mosque in 1994 and murdered 29 Muslims as they were praying. An act that is celebrated in Israel to this day. After 27 years of being occupied, the level of violence from Israel reached a point where they started simply walking into mosques and killing Palestinians. Goldstein was allowed into the mosque by the IDF. At this point, Hamas said that they had enough, and promised 5 suicide bombings in return. There was a 40 day mourning period, and the suicide bombings started on the 41st day. That is how suicide bombings started. After 3 bombings, Israel responded by withdrawing from Palestinian territory that they were supposed to withdraw from years earlier. Because Israel responded positively, Hamas called off the rest of the promised attacks, and there were only 3 instead of 5. Hamas uses suicide bombing when conditions become intolerable and they judge it to be their only course of action. Hamas was only judged by Europe to be a "terrorist organization" by Europe after 9/11. The judgement was a political decision. If Hamas got hold of some F-14 fighters and began bombing Israeli cities like "civilized" countries do, but stopped their suicide bombing, would they be taken off the US terrrorist list? Hamas has stopped suicide bombings anyway. The Israelis had their own terrorist organizations (Stern gang and Irgun) as well, until they got their state. Maybe Hamas will stop when they get theirs. Most states do not consider Hezbollah to be a terrorist organization, because they are not.

Your second point is that "Iran does not have a democracy but only a farce of one." You support this statement with this:

"When political parties are disallowed unless vetted by the government, true press freedom doesn't exist, a secret police is omnipresent and non-Muslims are not allowed to run for office, what you have is a farce posing as a democracy."

I addressed the issue of vetting. 500 reformists were allowed to run in the last election. It's not like they are banned. They don't allow people to run who would challenge the nature of their state. This is standard. Would communists have been allowed to run for office in the Mccarthy era? You bring up press freedom. Etemad is the reformist newspaper, and is available everywhere. They even have a website. Go read it.

I addressed your third point, and your response is that it was silly. Try harder.

dave742 said: "Iran, however, does have a democracy."

That one sentence blows everything else he says out of the water. He can't be taken seriously about anything else.

I've gone through the archives to show what a wonderful "democracy" Iran is. Actually dave is right in a way--when Muslims have simple "democracy" (rule by what the people want) it will be a cruel totalitarianism -- because that's what the Muslim people want!

Anyway, here's the "democracy" of Iran in action:

1) Last week six women and a man touring the southern city of Shiraz were beaten and arrested. The State Security Forces (SSF) – mullahs' suppressive police – Chastity Unit patrolling the streets stopped a group of East Asians touring the city for not observing the strictly imposed dress code.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/022388.php

2) Tehran, 28 Sept.(AKI) - A court in the Iran's second largest city, Mashad, has sentenced to death by stoning a mother-of-three for having an extra-marital affair... the married woman's lover had confessed to having had sex with her and that the court sentenced him to 100 lashes.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/018356.php

3) Tehran, Iran, Jan. 07 – An Iranian court has sentenced a teenage rape victim to death by hanging after she weepingly confessed that she had unintentionally killed a man who had tried to rape both her and her niece.
http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/009746.php

4) TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iranian police will launch a crackdown next month on small companies which fail to enforce strict religious dress codes... The move indicates an expansion of a clampdown on "immoral" conduct launched last year against women flouting rules to cover their heads and disguise the shape of their bodies in public...
The enforcement of "hijab" has been a cornerstone of the Islamic system introduced after the 1979 revolution.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/020847.php

5) After popular demonstrations which happened following Iran's win over Japan in the frame of the qualification games for the 2006 Soccer World cup -- "Brutal militiamen were seen using clubs, chains and knives against demonstrators with the firm intention to kill anyone standing against the regime. Several female protesters were seen beaten to death in Guisha and Fatemi as they took off their veils."
http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/005505.php

6) Tehran, Iran, Sep. 06 – Women who violate Iran’s strict Islamic dress code will be flogged immediately, prosecutor’s offices in provincial centres announced on Tuesday.
http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/008028.php

7) TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran's parliament on Wednesday voted in favor of a bill that could lead to death penalty for persons convicted of working in the production of pornographic movies.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/016913.php

8) February of 2005 -- Iran's hard-line Revolutionary Guards have declared the death sentence on British author Salman Rushdie is still valid - 16 years after it was issued.

The military organisation, loyal to Iran's supreme leader - said the order was "irrevocable" on the eve of the anniversary of the 1989 fatwa.

http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/005024.php

9) “I will stop Christianity in this country,” Ahmadinejad reportedly vowed.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/009241.php

10) Tehran, 29 July (AKI) - Sixteen Iranians who converted from Islam to Christianity were arrested on Tuesday in Malakshahr, on the outskirts of the central Iranian city of Isfahan.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/021996.php

11) Tehran, 28 May (AKI) - Ten Iranians who converted from Islam to Christianity in recent months have been arrested in the southern city of Shiraz.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/021204.php

12) Iran: Ex-Muslim converts to Christianity arrested, told "The next time there may also be an apostasy charge, if you don’t stop with your Jesus".

Security police officials in Tehran this month tortured a newly converted couple and threatened to put their 4-year-old daughter in an institution after arresting them for holding Bible studies and attending a house church.

A Christian source in Iran said that 28-year-old Tina Rad was charged with “activities against the holy religion of Islam” for reading the Bible with Muslims in her home in east Tehran and trying to convert them.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/021571.php

13) Iran: 16-year-old girl hanged for "sharp tongue" -- 16-year-old Atefeh Rajabi. What was her crime? Offending public morality. She was found guilty of "acts incompatible with chastity" by having sex with an unmarried man, even though friends say Atefeh was in such a fragile mental state that she wasn't in a position to say no. The judge personally put the noose around her neck to hang her. Democracy in action!
http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/012333.php

14) Iran: Use of the word "women" banned from state TV
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/018974.php

15) Iran sentences 17-year-old girl to death.
"This girl's only crime was that she resisted her rapists and those Muslim thugs who also were trying to rape her even younger niece."

http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/009741.php

This only took me five minutes. I haven't even had my coffee yet. There's a mountain of more of this evil shit ahead of me in the archives. "Democracy" my ass.

dave742,
"500 reformists were allowed to run in the last election." Isn't that kind of them. And what is the mullah's definition of reformist? Is there a baseline so that we may judge? Is it the same as a Western progressive, or even as liberal as a typical Western conservative?

The Arabs have been using terrorism against Jews in the Levant area well before Israel was founded, and that doesn't even included the daily dhimmi humiliation. Jewish terrorism was tactical to survive, while Muslim terrorism is both an offensive and defensive strategy rooted in the Koran.

Baruch Goldstein is a pariah in Israel. His name will be dragged up by your sort a century from now, after thousands of Arab suicide bombings, as a pitiful attempt at moral equivalency.

Hamas, Hezbollah, PLO, etc. like to say, "First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people." Islamic supremacy is their goal, genocide is their way.

dave742: When someone maintains, as you have, that America is the largest terrorist state which has ever existed, there is no need to continue debating with such an individual. Your statements about Israel are equally pathetic and distorted. Ditto respecting your understanding of what constitutes real democracy. You live in an alternative universe and I feel sorry for you. Bye.

DenverRodeo:

Do you people read anything if its not fed to you by Jihad Watch? Jesus.

I will address one story now, and others if I have time:

"2)...A court in the Iran's second largest city, Mashad, has sentenced to death by stoning a mother..."

If Iran stones someone to death, that does not mean they do not have a democracy. Capital punishment is not related to democracy. The US still electrocutes people, but that has no bearing on whether or not the US is a democracy. Please focus.

This supposedly happened on Sept. 28, 2008. I searched Lexis Nexis from a month before to a month after this date with the keywords "stoning" and "Iran," and found nothing. I guess that's why JW resorted to the always popular "adnkronos International" link. I have no way of checking this story without some real information. It is true that some people have been sentenced to stoning, but in 2002, judiciary chief Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi issued a directive that imposed a moratorium on stoning. Since then the only stoning carried out has been on Jafar Kiani. The only stoning carried out in the last 6 years has been of a male, and even that one “was carried out by the local authorities in apparent defiance of the central judiciary.” Nobody has been stoned in the last 6 years by the state of Iran. Jafar’s wife was also in jail on adultery charges. She has since been released:

khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2008/March/middleeast_March273.xml§ion=middleeast

Going beyond Ayatollah Shahroudi’s directive, last month Iran’s judiciary submitted draft legislation to end the practice of stoning:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iZ7aTbPW-vzYtgdxmx1O5Iok-CMQ

Awesome job DenverRodeo
I accidently said Arab suicide bombings, when I should have said Muslim suicide bombings. They are not synonymous, despite many Muslim Arabs attempts to make it so. Arabs were Christian centuries before the advent of Islam, and many still are.

Max Publius:
"Baruch Goldstein is a pariah in Israel."

Sure. I guess that's why they dance and sing at his grave every year:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/685792.stm

I guess Jihad Watch didn't run a thread on that story, huh.

dave742
It's interesting to see what you don't dispute.
Everything you say is half-truth. Of course, I leave out parts as well, but for brevity's sake, not deception's.
for instance, an educated person could assume that despite Goldstein being a pariah, he probably still has a few demented fans. It's not necessary to say this. Charles Mason has a few fans. Does that mean the United States government and the American people celebrate him?

The fact that you did not mention about Goldstein, that I'd say you undoubtably know, is that the Israeli government demolished the shrine to Goldstein in 1999 as part of a larger act to outlaw all shrines to terrorists:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E07E4DD1538F933A05751C1A96F958260

Debating you is like shooting fish in a barrel.

That should have been Charles Manson, of course.

DenverRodeo:
"9) 'I will stop Christianity in this country,' Ahmadinejad reportedly vowed."

This quote does not exist in Lexis Nexis. It was reportedly told to "Compassdirect" by "a source." The Compass direct link no longer works, and the one that does work that relates to the "Ghorban Dordi Tourani" story no longer contains the above quote:

http://www.compassdirect.org/en/display.php?page=news&lang=en&length=long&idelement=4099

Actually, the person "Ghorban Dordi Tourani," or "Ghorban Tori," or any combination thereof, also does not exist in Lexis Nexis. Nothing about this person exists outside of this website and those who quote it. It's as if this website wasn't created, "Tourani", or "Tori", wouldn't exist either. Weird.

Do me a favor. Go through your list and find me something that is reported by something that can be deemed credible. Something that does not originate from "adnkronos International" or "compassdirect". When I am debating things and find information that backs up what I am saying, and it comes from sources such as these, do you know what I do? Ignore it.

MaxPublius:
So you resort to the "bad apple" excuse. I always know I am doing well when someone resorts to the "bad apple" argument, or calls me names, like Wellington. It's very satifying.

The entire settler movement reveres Goldstein, and this portion of Israeli society has great influence over the actions of the Israeli government. People like Sharon have always been settler sympathizers. Yes, the government goes through the motions of denouncing what Goldstein did, but then they respond to whatever the settlers tell them to do. As someone told me once, "actions speak louder than words".

dave742,
You're being called names because you deserve them. I can tell I'm debating a duplicitious person when he/she is being overtly polite while defending evil.

That's a blanket statement about settlers, and Sharon is dead. It is practically a truism to say that Muslims are freer in Israel than anywhere in the Middle East, and this is because the overwhelming majority of Jews intend to make it so, unlike Muslim societies intentionally designed to make life miserable for non-Muslims.

Bad apple arguments exist because there really are bad apples in every group. They do not reflect the hopes and dreams of the people. Muslims naturally reflect the hopes and dreams of Mohammad, who wished to subjugate and destroy people he deemed "unbelievers." There is no point in arguing this, but I'm sure you will.

The Israeli government didn't seem to listen to the settlers when they were being dragged out of Gaza. And why can't a small percentage of the West Bank be Jewish? Or Christian, for that matter? Should we ask your "non-terrorist" Hamas for the answer?

So adnkronos International and compassdirect are unreliable, but the UAE's khaleejtimes.com is? That's funny.

dave742

Atheists are incapable of understanding the motivation Religion provides to People. You and those like you, are what is behind the difficulty in dealing with Radical Islam, let alone Islam itself.

Considering your defense of Ineedajob and the Iranian Government. You should spare us your words and and put talk into action. Move to Iran and Experience for yourself the good life non Muslims have there.

You need to know God to understand what he says.

Many of us here have a very good understanding of what Allah thinks of Atheists, and it sure isn't pretty.

Max Publius:
"That's a blanket statement about settlers"

Yes, it is. I cannot prove this without writing 20,000 words or more. If you don't realize that settlers have a big influence in Israeli politics, then you either know nothing about it, or you are being disingenuous. Bringing up settlers being removed from Gaza is a joke. Turning Gaza into a prison was a simple solution to a demographic problem. I am sure the Gaza settlers were given nice homes in the West Bank, courtesy of the US taxpayer.

"So adnkronos International and compassdirect are unreliable, but the UAE's khaleejtimes.com is?"

Yes. If you don't like the Khaleejtimes, then how about the Australian news for the same story:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23398361-23109,00.html

See. When you bring up real stories, it is reported everywhere. If you don't trust Australia, let me know. I will find you more sources.

flowerknife_us:

the old "then why don't you just move there" line. awesome.

Ladies and gentlemen

we have been told that the doctrine of al-taqiyya was developed to a particular exquisite pitch of cleverness by the Shiites, whose variety of Islam is practised in Iran.

Now we see that that is indeed the case.

dave742
Let's try a different tactic. Speak to something like Hama's charter, or why even Muslim writers lament that virtually every Muslim country resides at the bottom end in terms of respect for human rights and (non-oil) productivity. Speak to why this site, and numerous others exists, and not a hinduwatch, or buddhistwatch, although I think there is a nazi run jewishwatch.

I know settlers have a big impact of Israeli politics. So does the anti-settlement left. You may indeed have more information on it, but you certainly process it in a demented fashion. To an ideolog, more info does not mean better conclusions.

Per capita, no group has received more (and done less with) money than the Palestinians. This demographic problem you mention: Was this a not planned by the Palestinians, using reproduction as a weapon, to hell with raising healthy, educated human beings? Of course its was, they've said so numerous times.

The fact that you can't substantiate articles on large, popular websites dedicated to the persecution of non-Muslims with articles written by Reuters, etc, doesn't mean they are wrong. Indeed, if you could prove a pattern of lying by these sites, you'd have something. Go for it. And of course, Reuters is always unassailable.

Correction: "popular websites dedicated to the DOCUMENTATION of persecution of non-Muslims"

dave742

Read Mr Spence's most recent post about Ineedajob and Iran.

The last sentence before the "continued reading" spells out pretty directly the type of reception you will receive upon moving there.

Have a happy life.

Max Publius:
“Speak to something like Hama's charter”

Khaled Hroub has written a couple books on Hamas, and his book is recommended reading on Hamas according to Martin Kramer, so maybe you’ll give it some weight:

http://www.amazon.com/Palestinian-Islamism/lm/KQ520P69FU6/ref=cm_lm_byauthor_full

I'll let Hroub speak to the Charter:

“The Charter was written in early 1988 by one individual and was made public without appropriate general Hamas consultation, revision or consensus, to the regret of Hamas’s leaders in later years. The author of the charter was one of the ‘old guard’ of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Gaza strip, completely cut off from the outside world. All kinds of confusions and conflations between Judaism and Zionism found their way into the Charter, to the disservice of Hamas ever since, as this document has managed to brand it with charges of ‘anti-Semitism’ and a naïve world-view.”

“Hamas, A Beginner’s Guide,” Khaled Hroub, 2006, page 33

“Hamas’s doctrinal discourse has diminished in intensity since the mid 1990s, and references to its Charter by its leaders have been made rarely, if at all. The literature, statements, and symbols used by Hamas have come to focus more and more on the idea that the core problem is the multidimensional issue of usurpation of Palestinian land, and the basic question is how to end the occupation. The notion of liberating Palestine has assumed a greater importance than the general Islamic aspect. Hamas’ view of the conflict has evolved to where it now perceives the conflict as ‘a struggle against the alliance of hegemonic colonialism (isti’mar) and Zionism directed against out entire nation…which finds multifarious expressions in the mechanism of domination.’” (internal quote from Marzouq 21 April 1995).

“Hamas, Political Thought and Practice,” Khaled Hroub, 2000, page 44

Azzim Tamimi gave more detail in his book “Hamas, Unwritten Chapters”:

“[The Charter] was published on 18 August, 1988, less than nine months after the foundation of the movement. Since then however, it has hardly ever been quoted or even referred to by the Hamas leadership or its official spokesmen…Once it had been drafted, Hamas institutions inside and outside Palestine were never adequately consulted over its content. According to Khalid Mish’al the Charter was rushed out to meet what was perceived at the time as a pressing need to introduce the newly founded movement to the public. Mish’al does not view it as a true expression of the movement’s overall vision, which

‘has been formulated over the years by inputs from the movement’s different institutions…[the Charter]should not be regarded as the fundamental ideological frame of reference from which the movement derives its positions, or on the basis of which it justifies its actions…the text of the Charter does not reflect the thinking and understanding of the movement..[and it is] an obstacle, or a source of distortion, or a misunderstanding regarding what the movement stands for’

…A series of consultations conducted in Beirut and Damascus from early 2003 until the end of 2005 reinforced the feeling of a number of senior Hamas Political Bureau officials that the time had come for the Charter to be re-written. A process of consultation culminated in the commissioning of a draft for a new charter. However, in the aftermath of the Palestinian legislative elections of 25 January 2006, in which Hamas won a majority, the project was put on hold until further notice, lest the new Charter be seen as a measure in resonse to outside pressure…The author of the Charter is believed to have been Abd Al-Fattah Dukhan…” page 147-150

Here is an example of a more recent Hamas document, from Tamimi’s book:

al-ayat.nl/hamas/hamasdokument.htm

Or you can read this:

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/30/AR2006013001209.html

Or read either of the two books I referenced. In both books are numerous Hamas documents written since the Charter which show a much different rhetoric, such as the Election Manifesto for the recent election. You can only read these things if you can tear yourself away from Jihad Watch.

dave742,
Man, give it up. Your apologetics are insane:

"...to the regret of Hamas’s leaders in later years. The author of the charter was one of the ‘old guard’ of the Muslim Brotherhood..."

Leave it to those "old guard" jihadists to be too honest, not schooled in modern takiyya like the "young turks" of jihad. You, or Hroub, make it sound like the Boy Scouts found a mantra to beating old ladies hidden in their creed.

"Hamas’s doctrinal discourse has diminished in intensity since the mid 1990's..."

Yeah, doesn't that always happen to idealists? Now Columbia's FARC are nothing more than narcotrafficantes, instead of the communist dreamers of yore.

"it has hardly ever been quoted or even referred to by the Hamas leadership or its official spokesmen…"

Especially when it's reps are currying favor with anti-Israel European politicians or at the United Nations. For internal consumption only, obviously.
Give me a break.

Just for the record, here are some of the lowlights of the Hamas Charter in all its gory:

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

"After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."

---------------

I'll give you one compliment, dave742. Your grammer is excellent, and you didn't stoop to berate mine when I've left errors because I always hit the dang Post button too fast.

Max Publius: I have followed your "debates" with dave742 and think, without hesitation, that you have argued reasonably, informatively and well. Problem is, as I know you know, dave742 is a dishonest, deeply confused and specious individual. He dissembles behind a littany of facts or pseudo-facts and parses things to absurd degrees. How boring.

I have no doubt he thinks he's clever and right, but so what? He is merely wrong and tedious. His most recent absurd post is a thinly veiled defense of Hamas, which, of course, is a terrorist organization pure and simple. Defend such a disgusting entity as Hamas and what won't you be snookered by? What's worse, dave742 thinks it is America which is the greatest terrorist political entity of all time. This is absurd on its face, as is dave742. I would respectfully suggest to you and all other reasonable persons who post at JW that dave742 simply be ignored henceforth. Of course, in the event this occurs, he will conclude that such avoidance constitutes ipso facto evidence that others cannot compete with his brilliant and informed argumentations. Well, let him think that. There's no harm in it.

Anyway, in the final analysis, it's your call as to how to proceed. Whatever you decide, I will respect your decision. Bantering with a fool can be looked upon as an intersting abstract exercise in trying to make reason respected and convincing above everything else. Or not. In any case, my best to you and yours.

Max Publius:
The "apologetics" are not mine. All I did was quote authors. So you are saying the authors I quoted are insane. This is a typical response to information that doesn't fit your worldview. Call it insane. So why do you think Kramer is recommending insane authors? Is he not as smart as he thinks? So tell me, what is a good book for me to learn about the "real" Hamas? Have you ever read a book?

Kramer also has a recommended reading list for Hezbollah:

http://www.amazon.com/Hezbollah/lm/2D79IGWIGJP4O/ref=cm_lm_byauthor_title_full

I've read 5 of them. The one by Amal Saad-Ghorayeb is very good. Never mind. Kramer is insane.

It's funny, because in the past people on the right have used Kramers articles to rebut things that I say. From now on I can tell them that Kramer is insane, because you told me he is. If he's not insane, he's certainly stupid if he recommends insane authors.

Max Publius:
Of course I know you will not read a book, so I'll post some quotes from Kramer's recommended book by Amal Saad-Ghorayeb:

”Both the party’s admires and detractors agree that, of all the political forces in Lebanon, Hizbu’llah is the only political party which has not been tainted by charges of corruption or political opportunism and which has resolutely stuck to its principles.” p. 3

“The pre-eminent factor directly responsible for the movement’s birth, and hence the Islamicisation of the Lebanese Shi’ites, was the Israeli invasion of 1982.” p. 10

Nasru’llah:
“…had the enemy not taken this step [the invasion], I do not know whether something called Hizbu’’lah would have been born. I doubt it.” p. 11

Saad-Ghorayeb, addressing the claim that Islamic fundamentalist groups “view secularist Muslims as ‘apostates’ who ought to be punished by death”, states that “Hizbu’llah has no such ‘takfir’ (declaring the infidelity of adversaries) discourse. Above all, it is the oppressors who are anathematized, regardless of their religious identities, political leanings or religiosity. Furthermore, the party does not equate secularism with oppression or sin. As underlined by Hizbu’llah MP Muhammad Fnaysh, only the secularist who ‘disavows Islamic principles and sanctities’ or who enforces secularism as a state religion is considered hostile to Islam and an oppressor.” p. 20

“Hizbu’llah sympathises with secular Christian and even Marxist Third World Leaders such as Nelson Mandela, Daniel Ortega and Fidel Castro because of their countries’ oppressed status. Castro, for example, is ‘respected’ for preserving Cuba’s independence from US influence and for confronting the US’ hegemony over South America.” p. 21

“Occupation of one’s land by Israel or any other foreign power emerges as a principal determinant of oppression and, like all oppressed people, those whose land is occupied will be afforded Hizbu’llah’s ‘automatic’ support.” p. 21

Within Hizbu’llah, “legitimacy has been conferred on secular states…and withheld from Muslim ones…It follows that the overthrow of secular states is not the underlying purpose of jihad (holy war). The cornerstone of Hizbu’lah’s doctrine on political violence is the principle of the non-compulsion of Islam. Thus, there is no religious sanction for rebellion against secular states such as Lebanon just because they are not ‘governed by divine laws’. This belief is grounded un Hizbu’llah’s reading of the Shari’a (Islamic law) which deems rebellion and civil disobedience ‘unacceptable’. In light of this Islamic concept, the party feels duty-bound to ‘preserve public order’ and consequently views civil peace as a ‘red line’ which cannot be crossed.”

“According to Judith Harik’s 1992 study, only 13 percent of Shi’ites lent their support to the creation of an Islamic republic in Lebanon.” p. 35

“…a keen observance of Islamic faith…posits that Islam cannot be enforced upon followers of other faiths. Hizbu’llah’s reference to the Qur’anic injunction ‘Let there be no compulsion in religion (2:256) both in its Open Letter of 1985 and 14 years later as articulated by Shaykh Na’im Qasim, is indicative of the tenacity with which this conviction is held. Moreover, the party’s constant reassurance that it has no intention of forcibly ‘imposing’ an Islamic state on the Lebanese people, from as far back as 1985 to the present, is further testimony to this point.” p. 36

“According to former Hizbu’llah secretary-general Shaykh al-Tufayli, it is not Hizbu’llah whom God will call to account for the non-fulfillment of an Islamic state, but those who obstructed its creation. The only religious obligation upon the party is that it actively pursues justice, regardless of whether or not this culminates in the creation of an Islamic state.” p. 37

“the ultimate end of {Hizbu’llah’s] Islamicisation efforts is not the highly improbable creation of an Islamist society, which would construct the ideal Islamic state, but rather, the fulfillment of the Islamic imperative to spread the word of Islam, without any ulterior political motives. Since the political is the master of all concerns for Hizbu’llah, Islamicisation is nott accorded the same weight as the political and military resistance to oppression.” p. 38

“liberation from Israeli occupation is considered a far greater attainment of justice, and hence a greater imperative, than the Islamicisation of society.” p. 38

Political pluralism:
“According to Principle 26 of the Iranian constitution, parties as well as religious societies, ‘whether Islamic or pertaining to one of the recognized religious minorities’, are permitted so long as they do not ‘violate…the criteria of Islam or the basis of the Islamic Republic.” p. 41 (mainly religious pluralism and not ideological pluralism)

“By analogy, Muhammad Fnaysh suggests that, just as the American constitution would not sanction the presence of groups that sought to overthrow the capitalist system, as demonstrated by the McCarthy era, the Islamic state cannot countenance the existence of ideological groups seeking to overturn it. Accordingly, the Islamic state is perceived to be no less politically pluralistic than the US democratic system, which also restricts political participation to groups that respect its foundations.” p. 44

“According to Fnaysh, Hizbu’llah believes that ‘there must be a Christian role [in the Islamic state] so long as there are Christians in society’. The example of Iran is invoked to delineate the extent of religious pluralism envisaged by the party. As stipulated by Article 64 of the Iranian constitution, Zoroastrians, Jews and a number of Christian minority groups are all entitled to parliamentary representation commensurate with their numbers in the population.” p. 44

Differs from Israel:
“Article 144 of the constitution specifies that the army as a whole must be ‘committed to Islamic ideology’, but it does not require that army recruits have faith in Islam, but merely in ‘the objectives of the Islamic revolution’.” p. 44

Fnaysh quote:
“Since [Lebanese] society is not an Islamic one and Hizbu’llah is part of this society, it has to demand of itself what it demands of others. No one can impose a state on others and expect to succeed. If an Islamic state were established by force, then it would no longer be Islamic and would lose all legitimacy.” p. 49

“Hizgu’llah’s embrace of democracy as a system through which the greatest possible extent of justice can be fulfilled means that, although it is not viewed as the ideal system capable of fulfilling absolute justice, as Islam is, it is accepted, and even championed, as the next best system to Islam. Thus, although Hizbu’llah does not endorse democracy as the best system of government on the intellectual level, it endorses it as a system of government on the political level.” p. 55

“…when Hizbu’llah depicts the Islamic Republic as ‘our religion, our Ka’ba [the Muslim Holy of Holies], our blood and our veins, it relates to the Wilayat al-Faqih, and not to the Iranian government. By the same token, the reference to ‘Islamic thought’ or ‘Islamic decision-making’ should be construed as a euphemism for the Wali al-Faqih, and not for Iran as Martin Kramer alleges.” p. 66

“Hizbu’llah maintains that ‘while religion is one aspect of civilization, it need not be the only aspect. Ethnicity can also provide the basis for civilization.’ Thus, even though Islam is the predominant aspect of Islamic civilization, Arab non-Muslims can be considered part of this civilization insofar as their Arabism renders them members of the Arab Islamic subcivilization. By extension, the Lebanese Christian is part of the Arab Islamic subcivilization, and therefore ‘part of the Islamic umma’.” p. 82

“As argued by Nasru’llah, just as the affiliation to Christianity, Communism or any other belief system does not conflict with one’s Lebanese identity, Hizbu’llah’s affiliation to Islam, and by implication its allegiance to the Wilayat al-Faqih, does not undermine its ‘Lebanese identity or patriotism’.” p. 82

“…Nasru’llah implies that, in the event of a conflict of interest between the Lebanese and Iranian states, Hizbu’llah would pursue Lebanon’s interests at Iran’s expense.” p. 83

“From Hizbu’llah’s perspective, the greatest indication of nationalism is the readiness to sacrifice oneself for one’s nation, as epitomized by the Islamic Resistance martyrs and fighters who both lose and risk their lives in order to liberate national territory.” p.83

“The resistance to the Israeli occupation therefore emerges as a ‘national cause’, ‘goal’ or ‘duty’, as well as a religious one, which is waged on behalf of ‘all Lebanese and Arabs’, as well as all Muslims. By extension, Hizbu’llah’s Resistance is not only an Islamic one, as its name suggests, but also a ‘Lebanese’ and ‘nationalist’ resistance, ‘whose jihad is Lebanese’. To substantiate such a claim, in late 1997 the party established the “Lebanese Brigades of Resistance to the Israeli Occupation’, a multi-sectarian military adjunct to its Islamic Resistance forces.” p. 84

“Hizbullah draws the line at the killing of Western civilians, which it strongly condemns…”. In response to the 1997 bombing in Luxor by the Islamic Group, Hizbu’llah described it as “bloody and terrible”, and even accused the Islamic Group as being “an instrument which is utilized by the umma’s real enemies [i.e. Israel]”. p.100

“The cornerstone of Hizbu’llah’s repudiation of Western culture is its abomination of the materialist doctrine, which underlies the West’s ‘brutal capitalism’. As an ‘intellectual and philosophical distortion’, Western capitalism cannot ensure the right balance between ‘human nature and the public interest’, and by extension, cannot achieve social justice. Moreover, its inherent defectiveness as a socio-political system is evinced by its responsibility for all the world’s ‘crises, hunger, poverty, pollution, corruption and wars’. Modern materialism is therefore perceived as the ‘new Pharaoh’, which seeks to ‘enslave man and especially the poor and oppressed’. As such, it is the root cause of the Western drive to subjugate the oppressed world, which in turn, has fallen prey to its corrupting influence, thereby rendering it a slave to consumerism.” p.103

“The party…confines its hostility to the US government’s perceived bias towards Israel, and does not extend it to the American people, who are presumably neither held responsible for their government’s ‘oppressive’ policies, nor for the ‘cultural invasion’ launched by their media and educational institutions.” p.106

“As a non-existential struggle, dialogue and reconciliation with the West are very real possibilities for Hizbu’llah…In Qassim’s opinion, dialogue should occur among all the world’s nations, since ‘interaction with different cultures is good”. The high value placed on dialogue is more clearly expressed by another Hizbu’llah official who discloses the party’s desire to hold a direct dialogue with the American people. Another indication of the party’s desire to reconcile with the American people, and Western society generally, lies in its repeated intention to project a better image of itself to the American people and to the West by ‘waging a campaign to show them that the Resistance is not terrorist’.” p.107

“From these observations, it emerges that the struggle between Hizbu’llah (or Islam) and the West is not an existential one. It should also be stressed that the struggle between the two should not be characterized as a civilizational ‘conflict’ or ‘khilaf’, as Samuel Huntington has chosen to do, but as a civilizational ‘dispute’ or ‘ikhtilaf’. For Fayyad, the distinction between the two terms is a crucial one insofar as the former term denotes civilizational irreconcilability whereas the latter term implies the possibility of civilizational co-existence and harmony. The fact that this struggle is a dispute rather than a conflict is evident in the party’s improved relations with the West, with particular reference to Europe. Hizbu’llah’s rapprochement with Europe is epitomized by the radical change in its stand towards France. In contrast to Hizbu’llah’s animosity towards the Francois Mitterand government, which ordered French troops into Lebanon in support of the detested Gemayel regime, the government presided by Jacques Chirac is viewed favorably by the party. This perspective is due to the new administration’s ‘understanding of the Lebanese people’s suffering in the face of the Israeli occupation’, and its generally ‘balanced’ role which serves to countervail the US’ hegemony over the region. As conceived by Meri’, the party’s rapprochement with France is demonstrative of its willingness to reconcile with any Western state that changes its regional policy.” p. 108

“Qasim drives this point home when he asserts that no culture or civilization can be completely accepted or rejected, not even American culture which has ‘positive, as well as negative, elements’. One such element is the high value Americans place on the freedom of expression, notwithstanding the fact that they do not apply this value to other nations. Another value worthy of emulation is the social equality that characterizes Western society…As well as accepting certain Western values, the party admires Western science and knowledge and appreciates Western educational institutions…the party views the Western educational system as superior to all other educational systems in the contemporary Arab or Muslim world…Out of the nine party officials interviewed by this author, all nine had received a secular university education, including the two clerics. Although both Shaykhs Na’im Qasim and Husayn al-Mussawi had attended religious seminaries, they had degrees in chemistry and mathematics, respectively. ” p. 109

“From its very inception, Hizbu’llah has continuously striven to show that the attainment of political power is secondary to its goal of liberating the occupied zone…This prioritization stands in sharp contrast to the Sunni Islamist perspective, which considers the struggle against Israel to be secondary to the deposition of indigenous secular governments and the institution of Islamic governments in their place…its principal dispute with Amal revolves around the primacy the latter places on the attainment of political power. As elaborated by Nasru’llah, ‘Amal is more concerned with affairs related to power and the domestic agenda than it is with the resistance priority’, which Hizbu’llah regards as a clear instance of misplaced priorities… In effect, Hizbu’llah sacrificed its political independence and integrity, and perhaps even its political size, for the sake of preserving its resistance to the Israeli occupation.” p. 112 and 114 and 115 and 116

“…the notion of instituting Islamic rule in Lebanon has become too much of a Utopia to merit serious political deliberation or to be considered a realizable political goal by the party.” p.115

“Jihad is therefore an essentially defensive, as opposed to an offensive, activity in Hizbu’llah’s conception…only the Twelfth Imam is entitled to wage [an offensive jihad]….” p. 122 and 124

Defensive jihad is a “religious legal obligation (wajib shari’)…even if Israel does not fire a single bullet, because its very occupation is an act of aggression and a form of subjugation, which necessitates a defensive jihad.” P.125

“…Hizbu’llah ‘does not pursue martyrdom as an end in itself’, but as a means of achieving victory…The following contention by Nasru’llah confirms this theory: ‘Maybe some people think we crave martyrdom because we like to die in any way. No, we like to die if our blood is valued and has a great impact [on Israel].” p. 133

“…’in spite of all their faults’, Hizbu’llah is willing to condone Jews in its midst and does not believe that any harm should come to them. It is also manifest in the concept of ‘al-tasakun al-barid’ (‘cold cohabitation’) between Muslims and Jews, envisaged by Fayyid. Under such an arrangement, the Jews would be left to live in peace because the conflict between Islam and the Jews is essentionally ideological as opposed to existential, as in the case of Zionism. However, there would be no normalization of relations with them, hence the coldness of this cohabitation.” p. 185

I think you're right Wellington, this boy's noggin is cooked. Fascinating case study though; he's a real "rain man" of deceptive knowledge. He's read so much source lit from Islamic terrorists themselves that he's become a textbook example of Stockholm Syndrome. Could terrorphilia be a form or autism? Maybe we should have pity on the guy, he tries so hard. But then again, his type apologetics, which he tries to hide as "quotes" from others, have helped to sustain so much of the violence and evil in the world today. I figure it is worth battling dave742 and his type until they fully expose themselves for what they are--septic tanks full of Islamic crap.

dave wrote about the Hamas charter:

"...to the regret of Hamas’s leaders in later years. The author of the charter was one of the ‘old guard’ of the Muslim Brotherhood..." blah blah blah...

I suspect dave would be singing a completely different tune about a Christian political party that back in 1988 drafted (even if only by "one man") a formal charter in which all the goals of the KKK and the Neo-Nazis were enshrined, a charter that never from that point to the present officially repudiated and replaced by an acceptable charter. But since it's Muslims involved, dave has to twist every which way but loose to find ways to defend them.

Max Publius:
"For internal consumption only, obviously."

Actually, Hroub also talks about some internal Hamas documents that were confiscated by Israel. How do you think Hamas writes when they talk to each other? Assume it's all Allah-this and Allah-that and let's go get our 72 virgins and we can't wait to die? Nope. Other than the greating, Allah isn't mentioned once. The body of the documents are entirely secular, and talk about tactics, etc. I know, that's insane.

"Speak to why this site, and numerous others exists, and not a hinduwatch, or buddhistwatch..."

Israel exists in the Middle East, and their goal is to expand. In order to do this, you have to do what ever nation in history has done to the people who live on the land you want to expand into. You demonize them and make them appear to be subhuman. So Arabs are evil, and want to kill Jews for no reason than some unexplicable psychosis. At the same time, Argentinians are not evil, and you can make it through a day without thinking about Argentinians once.
What if, at the end of WWII, Israel was placed on a small piece of Argentina instead of in Palestine? What would have happened? Would Palestinians be sailing boats across the Atlantic to Argentina so they could blow up Jews in Argentina in suicide bombings? And Argentinians would remain peaceful and out of the media spotlight, and would welcome the Jews with open arms?

I don't think so.

The Jews would have been trying to expand their nation within Argentina, just as they are doing now in Palestine. Argentinians would have resisted this, because that's what people do. If Argentinians had no other way to resist, they would resort to suicide bombings. Meanwhile, nobody hear about the people in Palestine, and Arabs would not be evil. Instead, we would be talking on a site called "Argentina Watch" and you people would be trying to figure out what is wrong with the terrorists from Argentina.

"Ahmadinejad did not threaten anyone with "nuclear action."

Posted by: dave742

“Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading towards annihilation [Iranian president Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad said at the opening of a conference in support of the Palestinians. “The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm.”

Muslims always talk in coded fashion and like to say things without really using those straightforward words like " I will nuke you". The Muslims are trying to be mysterious and threatening at the same time...what is the truth behind "heading towards annihilation" or "will be eliminated by one storm.”

Amadinejads statement above certainly can be construed an a threat...and an threat with nuclear connotations..

dave742
No, I don't expect the leaders of Hamas, or the imams would be "idealist" enough to die for Allah. They have plenty of teens, the retarded, and widows for that.

You say:
"...demonize them and make them appear to be subhuman."

Kind of like referring to Jews and Christians as apes and pigs. Or all non-Muslims as dirty kuffar, likened to excrement and rats.

Unlike medieval terms that other religions have essentially banished, use of the above terminology is alive and well in Islam, used by its highest authorities.

Jews do not have 4000 years of history in Argentina. Again, "Palestinians" were attacking Jewish immigrants well before Israel was founded.

There is no religion called Argentinism. And Muslims HAVE attacked Jews in Argentina, as you know. It has been predicated on Islamic supremacy, not nationalism or "for no reason than some unexplicable psychosis."

Muslims DO go out of their way to attack non-Muslims all over the world, not because Muslims are innately evil, but because that is what Mohammad ordered, through his book, the Koran. Again, this is indisputable, it hasn't been mitigated by a "reformation", it is happening now, its obvious, Muslims tell us so themselves, etc., but no doubt, you will dispute it.

Continue talking to yourself from here buddy, you've lost several times over. I'm going out to run a victory lap or two, and enjoy my freedom from mullacracy.

pulsar182:
“The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm.”

"Only a government chosen by the people can resolve the problem of Palestine and the people of the region. The right to govern belongs to all people of Palestine and they must decide the governing model of their choice and elect their own officials. For this purpose, there must be an opportunity for all genuine Palestinians; be they Muslims, Christians, or Jews, residing in Palestine or in Diaspora, to participate in a referendum to decide the political system of their choice and elect their leaders. In other words, the only rational way which is compatible with the generally recognized international norms is holding of a referendum for all genuine Palestinians. The supporters of the Zionist regime prefer to remain silent in face of this reasonable proposition. But I tell them that regardless of what they desire, the Zionist regime is falling apart. The young tree of resistance in Palestine is blooming and blooms of faith and desire for freedom are flowering. The Zionist regime is a decaying and crumbling tree that will fall with a storm.”

globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2006/iran-060414-irna10.htm

I see no problem with this correct, in context quote. I agree with every word. Notice how he's talking about democracy again? How evil! I know, it's in code.

Max Publius:
"I'm going out to run a victory lap or two"

You gave me a compliment, so I'll give you one back. If you really believe this, you have excellent self-esteem.