[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great
Views expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

SHITTY LITTLE COUNTRY??!! Wipe it out????
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> Noteworthy Discussion Threads
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ViaHHakimi



Joined: 22 Jul 2004
Posts: 142

PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 12:05 pm    Post subject: SHITTY LITTLE COUNTRY??!! Wipe it out???? Reply with quote

Did you know?

Then open your eyes!
I am not about to advertise for Israel, far from it, but the facts we all should know!?

H.H.


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

This came to my by: Ramin Etebar, MD
The colored & emphasis are mine.
H.H.

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


SHITTY LITTLE COUNTRY, wipe it out!?



The Middle East has been growing date palms for centuries. The average tree is about 18-20 feet tall and yields about 38 pounds of dates a year.

*Israeli date trees are now yielding 400 pounds/year and are short enough to be harvested from the ground or a short ladder.

*Israel the 100th smallest country, with less than 1/1000th of the world's population, can lay claim to the following:

The cell phone was developed in Israel by Israelis working in the Israeli branch of Motorola, which has its largest development center in Israel. Most of the Windows NT and XP operating systems were developed by Microsoft-Israel. *The Pentium MMX Chip technology was designed in Israel at Intel. * Both the Pentium-4 microprocessor and the Centurion processor were entirely designed, developed and produced in Israel. *The Pentium microprocessor in your computer was most likely made in Israel. * Voice mail technology was developed in Israel. * Both Microsoft and Cisco built their only R&D facilities outside the US in Israel.* The technology for the AOL Instant Messenger ICQ was developed in 1996 by four young Israelis.*

Israel has the fourth largest air force in the world (after the U.S, Russia and China). In addition to a large variety of other aircraft, Israel's air force has an aerial arsenal of over 250 F-16's. This is the largest fleet of F-16 aircraft outside of the U. S. * Israel's $100 billion economy is larger than all of its immediate neighbors’ combined.*

Israel has the highest percentage in the world of home computers per capita. * According to industry officials, Israel designed the airline industry's most impenetrable flight security. US officials now look (finally) to Israel for advice on how to handle airborne security threats. * Israel has the highest ratio of university degrees to the population in the world.

Israel produces more scientific papers per capita than any other nation by a large margin - 109 per 10,000 people --as well as one of the highest per capita rates of patents filed. In proportion to its population,

Israel has the largest number of startup companies in the world. In absolute terms, Israel has the largest number of startup companies than any other country in the world, except the U.S. (3,500 companies mostly in hi-tech). With more than 3,000 high-tech companies and startups,

Israel has the highest concentration of hi-tech companies in the world -- apart from the Silicon Valley, U. S.

Israel is ranked #2 in the world for venture capital funds right behind the U. S. Outside the United States and Canada,

Israel has the largest number of NASDAQ listed companies.

Israel has the highest average living standards in the Middle East. The per capita income in 2000 was over $17,500, exceeding that of the UK. On a per capita basis,

Israel has the largest number of biotech startups.

Twenty-four per cent of Israel's workforce holds university degrees, ranking third in the industrialized world, after the United States and Holland and 12 per cent hold advanced degrees.

Israel is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East.

In 1984 and 1991, Israel airlifted a total of 22,000 Ethiopian Jews (Operation Solomon) at Risk in Ethiopia, to safety in Israel. When Golda Meir was elected Prime Minister of Israel in 1969, she became the world's second elected female leader in modern times. When the U. S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya was bombed in 1998, Israeli rescue teams were on the scene within a day -- and saved three victims from the rubble.

Israel has the third highest rate of entrepreneurship -- and the highest rate among women and among people over 55 - in the world. Relative to its population,

Israel is the largest immigrant-absorbing nation on earth. Immigrants come in search of democracy, religious freedom, and economic opportunity. (Hundreds of thousands from the former Soviet Union)

Israel was the first nation in the world to adopt the Kimberly process, an international standard that certifies diamonds as "conflict free."*

Israel has the world's second highest per capita of new books.

Israel is the only country in the world that entered the 21st century with a net gain in its number of trees, made more remarkable because this was achieved in an area considered mainly desert. *

Israel has more museums per capita than any other country.*

Medicine...

Israeli scientists developed the first fully computerized, no-radiation, diagnostic instrumentation for breast cancer. An Israeli company developed a computerized system for ensuring proper administration of medications, thus removing human error from medical treatment. Every year in U. S. hospitals 7,000 patients die from treatment mistakes. Israel's Given Imaging developed the first ingestible video camera, so small it fits inside a pill. Used to view the small intestine from the inside, cancer and digestive disorders. Researchers in Israel developed a new device that directly helps the heart pump blood, an innovation with the potential to save lives among those with heart failure. The new device is synchronized with the camera helps doctors diagnose heart’s mechanical operations through a sophisticated system of sensors.*

Israel leads the world in the number of scientists and technicians in the workforce, with 145 per 10,000, as opposed to 85 in the U. S., over 70 in Japan, and less than 60 in Germany. With over 25% of its work force employed in technical professions. Israel places first in this category as well. A new acne treatment developed in Israel, the Clear Light device, produces a high-intensity, ultraviolet-light-free, narrow-band blue light that causes acne bacteria to self-destruct -- all without damaging surrounding skin or tissue.

An Israeli company was the first to develop and install a large-scale solar-powered and fully functional electricity generating plant, in southern California's Mojave desert.

All the above while engaged in regular wars with an implacable enemy that seeks its destruction and an economy continuously under strain by having to spend more per capita on its own protection than any other county on earth..... . .

AND THE FRENCH AMBASSADOR IN ENGLAND SAYS : "ISRAEL IS NOTHING BUT A SHITTY LITTLE COUNTRY"

And the Brits mouth piece, Aakhond Ahmadi Nejad wants Israel to be wiped out of the Earth surface!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AmirN



Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 3:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don’t wish to inflate Israel either, but let’s face facts, and let’s give credit where it is due.

Some of the most brilliant minds that ever lived were of Jewish decent. The field of modern physics was created by them. Who could forget the greatest mind ever, and my personal hero, Albert Einstein? And J. Robert Oppenheimer? As well as countless others.

Imagine what the world would have lost, if someone like Einstein had fallen victim to the Nazis; even though I realize that he published his greatest works prior to the Nazis rise to power. Now also imagine, how many future Einsteins were indeed lost to the world during the Nazi years before they could fulfill their future potential. What contributions would some of the millions that were killed have potentially made? We’ll never know.

Israel is a modern marvel. Simply because it exists. I still cannot fully comprehend the resilience which has served such a relatively small country, which is completely surrounded and outnumbered by Arabs who are still hostile to it. And although some of these Arab states have abandoned a realistic hope for Israel’s destruction, they would all jump back on that wagon if the opportunity presented itself.

What is even more amazing is that Israel’s share of natural resources is relatively limited. Compare it to most of the Arab states and Iran, who have access to so much oil. It is unfortunate that these later countries lag so much behind. And the conditions in those countries are appalling, compared to what they should be since they are potentially rich countries. And why is that? Yes, I know the Western countries had something to do with it, by “cheating” them and “robbing” them of their oil. But that’s only one part of the answer. The fact is, they could not rob and cheat us, if we did not allow them. So a lot of the responsibility falls on our own shoulders. Obviously, in the short term, the reason why Iran lags so much is because of the dictatorial IRI regime which does not have the best interest of the country in mind. They only have their own personal interests in mind, and how to stay in power longer and rob the country, and how to spread their stupid barbaric religion. So, all the natural resource in the world doesn’t amount to anything, if the system is such that the leaders don’t truly care about the country.

But I digress. Back to Israel. Look at the parts that are dominated by Israelis, and look at the parts dominated by Palestinians. Compare Israeli civilization with Palestinian slums. Some may argue that they are slums because Israelis made it such, and stuck the Palestinians there. I don’t agree. I think they are slums, because Palestinians made it such. And that’s because of the different attitudes of these people. The Palestinians are more preoccupied with death and war than with helping themselves. Some would argue that they have turned to violence and war because they have nothing else, no hope. I would say the opposite. They have nothing else, no hope, because they have turned to violence. Obviously, this is a vicious cycle, regardless of which came first. But to break that cycle, these Arabs need to realize that they need to put their swords down long enough to build a life for themselves, and coexist with the Israelis. But, Arab mentality is contrary to that.

If the Arabs and the Arab wanna-bes like Monkey-Nejad and the IRI ever got their wish (which they never will), all of Israel would start to look like the rest of the Arab countries. A barren backward land of uncivilized ignorance. Maybe that would make them all happy. It’s hard to live in a crap-hole, when next door to them there is a Paradise. Misery loves company.
_________________
I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage

Naqshe Rostam
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 2:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

c'mon Amir! your smater than that....hell, the west helps Iran develop it's petroleum industry, paid fair market value for the crude, was getting a return on its investment, the people of Iran were experiencing modern living conveiniances, and then what?

The mullahs cried, "Progress is evil."

Nice twist to the spin to get even intellectuals like yourself believing that the diabolical capitalist infidel pigs have sucked the life-blood of your nation for generations, when in fact it has been the state sponsored corruption, the mafia-style facist backwarded arse-holes that have had their heads so firmly stuck up their backsides, that even a GBU-28 bunker-buster wouldn't help remove their constipation, they that have rewritten history to place no blame upon their bloodstained fingers, all the while they've been eating the people's share of the pie...and blaming the west for their crimes.

They call them "millionare mullahs" for a reason you know...

Figured you needed a dose of reality, before you got totally infected....(chuckle)....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AmirN



Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oppenheimer,


First of all, the summary of my post here was mostly dealing with my interpretation of the state of Israel. But it seems you picked up on my half paragraph regarding the west’s role in Iran’s history. And it also seems you focused more upon the one side of the argument I presented, and not the counterpoint.

I assume you refer to this statement I posted:

Quote:
Yes, I know the Western countries had something to do with it, by “cheating” them and “robbing” them of their oil. But that’s only one part of the answer. The fact is, they could not rob and cheat us, if we did not allow them. So a lot of the responsibility falls on our own shoulders.


As you see, I have presented both sides of the argument. My point is that although the west is not completely innocent, and did take advantage of Iran, blame cannot be placed solely on them. In fact, I wasn’t even saying that most of the fault is with the west, but rather with Iranians themselves. As I said, they couldn’t rob and cheat us if we didn’t allow them.

There are two extreme points of view regarding this issue. I’ve heard many argue that our calamity is almost entirely the fault of the west. That they conspired and planned everything, for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the situation. I'm also aware of the complete opposite viewpoint, like yours, that the west did nothing but mind its own business, and Iranians are solely to blame for Iran.

I think the reality falls somewhere in the middle, although my opinion is that the fault is somewhat skewed to the side of the Iranians themselves.

But if you think that the west played completely by the rules, and had no intention of undermining Iran’s oil by undermining Iran’s politics, then my friend, perhaps you are the one who is in need of a dose of reality.



By the way, where have you been? It’s good to see you back, after a short “vacation.” Very Happy It isn’t fun for me to rip into Islam without you there to defend it. Without your counterpoints, Islam just becomes a sitting duck to me. And who likes to shoot sitting ducks? Laughing
_________________
I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage

Naqshe Rostam
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 6:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm also aware of the complete opposite viewpoint, like yours, that the west did nothing but mind its own business, and Iranians are solely to blame for Iran.
------------------

Ah, now you are either assuming too much from my post, or simply putting words in my mouth....

What I wrote was the truth, but one cannot summerize history in total in a single post....

No the west is not blameless, the law of unintended concequences has often been a factor in US/Iranian affairs.

What I said also about the corruption and propoganda on the part of the mullahs is also dead-on accurate.

The fact is, I was simply teasing you a bit....with good intent....

I would like though, for you to produce a single post of mine where I "defend Islam".... that is an incorrect statement.

My attitude is in reality totally in accordance with the following assesment of the current state of play, and future trends...

We have talked much about the changing nature of mindsets...you see Islam as a static dogma....where in reality any religion is by its very nature a product of those that adhear to its tenets....when those tenets no longer serve the believers, then the religion either adapts, or dies...this is a historical "given", and very similar in precept to political systems....

Since Islam is both a religion, and a political system, it is doubly subject to the forces of change from within.

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

Islam's `ultimate battles' on horizon in Muslim heartland
The Associated Press, Dec. 26, 2005



EDITOR'S NOTE _ This is the final story in a series examining the fault lines within Islam between the forces of moderation and extremism. That split shook America to its core on Sept. 11, 2001, and is now one of the defining conflicts of our era. Across the Muslim world, there's an added anguish for the future: mounting bloodshed as the clashes take on the hallmarks of civil war.

By BRIAN MURPHY

AP Religion Writer

AMMAN, Jordan (AP) _ A giant montage of artwork hangs outside one of the hotels hit by suicide bombers last month. The images include tears for the 60 victims and clenched fists to honor the anti-terrorism marches that have set the standard for Arab rage against al-Qaida and the offshoots it inspired.

But the most repeated theme of the drawings at the Radisson SAS is a penetrating question: why? The pictures ask: Why us? Why are Muslims killing Muslims? Well before the triple Nov. 9 attacks in Amman, this line was already chiseled into the epitaph of 2005.

The ideological wars between mainstream Islam and its radical fringe have turned inward.

While the West snaps to attention when bloodshed hits home _ most recently in July's London bombings _ there was an even greater toll within the Muslim world in the past year. It includes gunbattles in Saudi Arabia between extremists and government forces, another wave of blasts at resorts in Egypt and Indonesia, the Amman attacks _ whose carnage included a wedding party _ and bombings in Bangladesh blamed on rebels seeking strict Islamic rule.

Terrorist cells and militants insist that ordinary Muslims have nothing to fear. The numbers say otherwise. More than 170 civilians were killed this year in attacks by Islamic radicals in Muslim nations outside of Iraq, while Associated Press reporting shows that at least 4,700 Iraqis have been killed since late April alone _ many in extremist-led attacks.

Many experts believe this points to Islam's next major evolution as it struggles to adapt to the globalized age: bigger and more decisive showdowns in the Muslim heartlands.

"I fear this type of Muslim-on-Muslim violence is the sign of the future," said Abdulmajead Salahin, the dean of the Islamic law department at Jordan University.

Some of that turmoil, he believes, will come as payback when moderate Muslims retaliate. "Ordinary Muslims are growing tired of seeing their faith corrupted by radical criminals," he said. "They want to fight back. They want their governments to fight back.

"This is the only way that radicalism can be defeated. It can't come from the outside. Not America or Europe. Islam must fight within itself before it can heal itself."

By every objective measure _ the weight of Muslim public opinion, available resources and mounting pressure from authorities _ radical Islam appears to have less and less breathing room. And yet the extremists seem as powerful as ever, and certainly as lethal. They draw strength and recruits from a resolve that moderates have found difficult to match. To some Muslims _ especially those convinced that Islam is under threat from the West _ there's a compelling bravado from radical clerics and militants who portray themselves as the self-appointed guardians of the faith.

They preach about returning to Islam's glory days, such as a pan-Islamic caliphate, or theocratic empire uniting the Middle East and beyond. The West and its allies are described as being part of the "dar al-harb," or territory of war, against Islam. Even the modern nation-state is often scorned as a Western-imposed map that artificially divides Muslims.

Statements attributed to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi _ leader of al-Qaida in Iraq and alleged mastermind of the Amman bombings _ have claimed a God-given duty to kill "infidels" and warned of more attacks in his homeland of Jordan.

"The so-called clash of civilizations is really, at the end of the day, a clash within Islam," said Enes Karic, dean of the school of Islamic studies at the University of Sarajevo. "This is where the ultimate battles must be fought."

It's moving in that direction.

Pro-Western governments such as Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are applying more pressure on radical Islam after many years of indulgent policies _ essentially turning a blind eye to radical strains as long as their targets were abroad.

On Dec. 8, leaders from more than 50 Muslim nations meeting in Mecca, Saudi Arabia _ Islam's most holy city _ agreed in principle to impose harsher criminal penalties for "financing and incitement" of extremist ideas. They also pledged to fight radical "fatwas," or Islamic religious edicts, that justify hatred or killings, particularly against other Muslims.

The promised clampdowns mean that militant factions will be forced to either surrender or, more likely, strike back, Karic said. The average Muslim is caught in the middle. "It's no longer some faraway thing like Sept. 11," he said. "It's in their everyday lives."

And the more angry and active the Islamic public becomes _ like the protest marches in Jordan _ the more radicals are backed into corners in their own nations. In the short term, this could bring more backlash. But some experts believe it also could ultimately subject Islam's militant factions to greater doubts and defections.

"No matter how sweet the stories of (the) revival of the caliph and the caliphate may sound to Muslim ears, we must be aware of the fact that in fighting the battles that are already lost, (Islamic radicals) are showing the greatest possible insanity," he said last month at an Islamic conference in Vienna, Austria.

But not all consider extremists so easily beaten. The past year offered a running commentary on the resilience of Islamic militants, and their abilities to strike on home ground.

The most recent front is Bangladesh, where more than 20 people were killed in a spate of bombings since late November blamed on the outlawed Jumatul Mujahideen Bangladesh, which seeks to replace the country's secular laws with Islamic rules.

The other attacks bounced around the Muslim world. Egypt: Car bombs in July killed at least 64 people at the Sinai resort of Sharm el-Sheik. Indonesia: Three suicide bombers with alleged linked to an al-Qaida backed group killed 20 people on the resort island of Bali in October. Then the blasts in Amman in November.

The concept of waging violent jihad both at home and abroad is not a new one. As far back as the 1950s, the Egyptian-born radical ideologue Sayyid Qutb was refining the idea of two foes: the "far" enemy of America and its backers, and the "near" enemy of Muslim leaders and others who oppose their austere interpretations of strict Islam and "sharia," or Islamic law.

Qutb's writings became part of the intellectual foundations for Osama bin Laden. Qutb, who was hanged by Egyptian authorities in 1966, also helped harden the contemporary views of the Muslim Brotherhood, the oldest and largest conservative Islamic movement and a growing force in Egyptian politics.

The grand mufti of Syria, Ahmad Bader Hassoun, offered a bleak depiction of what could come next without a serious effort to counter the spread of extremist creeds in mosques, Quranic groups and on the Internet. He told the Vienna gathering that Islam could develop "a kind of religious Marxism or Leninism" capable of overwhelming moderate voices and opening new assaults against perceived enemies _ particularly in Muslim nations.

"We have to break down the wall, like how it was demolished in Berlin," he said.

Jordan, for the moment, appears willing to lead the way.

The aftermath of the bombings brought something nearly as stunning to the Muslim world: major street demonstrations _ both government-arranged and independent _ that seethed with disgust against the concept of violent jihad.

The crowds waved Jordanian flags and ridiculed Zarqawi as a villain and coward. One banner called Zarqawi "an enemy of God." The largest march was estimated at 100,000 people _ surpassing the anti-American rallies before the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

"When someone blows up an American tank in Iraq, I salute them," said Hamzeh Mansour, general-secretary of the Islamic Action Front Party, which has 17 seats in Jordan's 110-member parliament. "But this is not legitimate resistance, it's murder of innocent people, innocent Muslims. The strong reaction from the Jordanian people is a message to Muslims everywhere that these kinds of actions are unacceptable."

Zarqawi's own clan, the influential Bani Hassan tribe of Jordan, disowned him and proclaimed loyalty to King Abdullah II in full-page letters published in Jordanian newspapers. The blow was particularly painful since being a family outcast is one of the harshest stigmas in Arab society.

Abdullah ordered the government to launch a "relentless" war on Islamic militancy. The country's new religious affairs minister said all of Jordan's 3,600 clerics and Friday prayer leaders will be required to closely follow the "Amman Message," a declaration issued by Jordan last year that calls on the world's 1.2 billion Muslims to condemn the "despotic" grip of terrorism and the "abyss of extremism."

For weeks, mourners lit candles and laid flowers for the victims, nearly all local Muslims: 39 at the Radisson, including 30 people attending a Jordanian-Palestinian wedding; and 18 at the Grand Hyatt. Three Chinese military envoys were also killed outside the Days Inn by a suicide bomber who fled through the main entrance after his explosives failed to detonate inside the lobby restaurant.

Two days after the explosions _ with bits of human flesh still splattered against the cream-colored stone at the Days Inn _ the hotel hosted a wedding reception.

"I felt like I was the groom," said general manager Khaled Abu Ghoush. "We danced. We showed we will not bow down to terror. I call these people the spirit of the devil. A criminal can still be called a human being. The people who did this cannot."

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

Where have I been? Taking a much needed break after working very hard over this last year helping bring about change.

That pretty well sums it up, as I am not a liberty to discuss publicly those efforts on the Iranian opposition's behalf.

But here's a clue as to the results....stay tuned.

Putting Transatlantic Power to Work for Freedom


Daniel Fried , Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs
Address to the American Enterprise Institute
Washington, DC
December 14, 2005

AMBASSADOR FRIED: Thank you for that, and it is a pleasure to be back at AEI.
The last time I was in this building, it was during the Orange Revolution; and
Radek Sikorski, before he became Defense Minister in Poland, had organized a
conference, a breakfast in support of the Orange Revolution and freedom. A few
days later, the Poles, the European Union, successfully negotiated a rerun of
the elections. The forces of democracy prevailed and Ukraine crossed a line of
freedom which had been crossed before by many countries in Europe and which
will be crossed again by countries in the future. So coming back to this room,
I recall some very good moments when transatlantic power was at work to support
freedom.

So it is a pleasure to be at AEI. This is a place where ideas matter. And I'm
here at a time when strategic thinking matters. I've just returned from Europe,
where I spent last week with Secretary Rice. The detainee and rendition issue
took up most of the media attention, as I'm sure you are aware. This issue then
threatened and still, I suppose, threatens to drown out the principal theme in
transatlantic relations of 2005, which is success in defining and advancing the
freedom agenda as America's national security strategy, and, following from
that, putting the political, economic and security assets of the transatlantic
alliance to work to support it. This is my theme today.

But on detainees, as this seems to be unavoidable everywhere I go, let me say
let me acknowledge that the detainee issue is challenging, and, for many
serious people in this country and in Europe, troubling. Secretary Rice
eloquently acknowledged the complicated challenge of fighting the war on terror
in a manner commensurate with our legal obligations and our values. And I have
nothing to add to her remarks today.

But apart from its complex and difficult substance, the handling of the
detainee issue by many in the European media is also disturbing. I'm concerned
by the reluctance on the part of some to recognize that the problem is real,
the threat is imminent and the consequences of failure to take seriously the
menace of terrorism can be fatal. And there is, I am afraid, a certain
eagerness with which some commentators seize on the opportunity to make again
their case for a European divorce from the United States.

The Concerted Effort of Free Nations

Now, in this, some Europeans mirror some Americans who have periodically
despaired on their part of the transatlantic alliance. But that is not the view
of the Bush Administration. As President Bush has said, "All the allies of the
United States can know we honor your friendship, we rely on your counsel and we
depend on your help. The concerted effort of free nations to promote democracy
is a prelude to our enemies' defeat." Let me repeat that: "The concerted effort
of free nations to promote democracy is a prelude to our enemies' defeat."

It is my contention today that since the President's Second Inaugural, which
set out the freedom agenda, we have made significant progress to develop just
this "concerted effort of free nations" and we have put it to work on an agenda
to advance freedom in the world.

Let me note some progress in this battle of ideas. Let me recall Chancellor
Merkel's Bundestag speech of November 30th, of which a major theme was freedom
her word and during which she spoke of support for NATO and common values
with the United States.

Let me note our recent agreement with the European Union, the joint EU-U.S.
promotion of democracy around the world, from Belarus to Burma, would be a
priority for joint action.

Let me emphasize the growing support of European governments for the Broader
Middle East Initiative, where countries such as Spain, Switzerland, Denmark,
Greece and Hungary have joined the effort to support democratic reform and
reformers in that region.

Finally, let me postulate that as a result of these efforts to articulate a
common transatlantic agenda, we've heard less of the counterweight theory of
Europe; that is, the curious notion that the purpose of Europe now that it is
whole, free and at peace is to check the United States, not to work with it.

I could go on, but you get the point. There exists, I contend, a developing
transatlantic consensus that our interests cannot be separated from our values,
that democratic governance has a greater legitimacy than other forms of
government, and that this is true everywhere in the world, and that the purpose
of the U.S.-European relationship is not to be a venue for value-free
competition but to support common action to support freedom.

I am aware, painfully so, of the skepticism with which European publics still
regard the United States in general, and, frankly, this Administration in
particular. We have done much more over the past year to reach out and speak to
skeptical as well as friendly Europeans.

But at the same time, so we don't wallow in occasional lurid poll results, an
enormous majority of European public opinion 74 percent according to the
famous German Marshall Fund poll supports U.S.-European joint action to
advance democracy in the world. In other words, European publics support the
number one American foreign policy objective and they support U.S.-European
cooperation to advance that objective.

Thus, Secretary Rice's argument in her op-ed last weekend that support for
democracy is a higher realism than that espoused by many self-proclaimed
realists has a willing potential audience in Europe.

Time to Put Theory to Work in the Service of Freedom

Now, this is theory. Theory is useful to the degree that it produces joint
actions. The time has come to move from converging theory to action and to put
theory to work in the service of freedom. That is our objective for 2006.

Let me report to you the actions we and Europe have taken together to advance
freedom's security, and security, and to report to you about our agenda for the
coming year.

In the Balkans, rather than wait to be overtaken by the next disaster, the
Contact Group, including the United States, Russia, EU and key Europeans, has
launched a strategy to resolve the last major open question in that region,
which is, of course, Kosovo's final status. As we do so, we are advancing
prospects for a European future for Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia, Albania, and if
it takes the steps needed to abandon the nationalist temptations that have done
it so much damage in the past, Serbia and Montenegro as well. Having set the
stage, in 2006, we the United States and Europe will have to show strength
to bring the Balkans from post-war to pre-Europe.

In Eastern Europe and Eurasia, the United States and Europe have acted to
promote and now to consolidate democracy in Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan; to
advance democracy in Europe's last dictatorship, Belarus; and to encourage
countries such as Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan to move more decisively and
consistently in the direction of democracy.

In 2006, we must be prepared to stand by our friends, like Saakashvili and
Yushchenko of Georgia and Ukraine, when they are under pressure, as they may
be, and to push our friends to maintain their reforms, even in the face of
difficulties that surely lie ahead.

In this vast and complex region, we will have to demonstrate clarity about our
goals democracy, and, through democracy, stability and strengthened
sovereignty while being realistic about what we can achieve in any given year
and in any given election.

We will have to be prepared in 2006 to stand up to and push back at dictators,
whether in Belarus or Tashkent. In Uzbekistan, the United States faced a choice
in this past year. We could have kept our base in Karshi-Khanabad had we turned
a blind eye to Karimov's repression and allowed him to grab the 450 Uzbek
refugees who had fled to neighboring Kyrgyzstan. We could have, but we didn't.
We chose deliberately to save lives rather than wink at a dictator.

We have advanced Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking further than almost everyone
in Europe thought possible. Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza and the opening
of the Rafah crossing with the European Union, by the way, taking on its
first major security responsibility in the region has given the Palestinian
people a chance to start building their future state in reality, not just in
rhetoric.

We have outlined the way ahead to strengthen NATO, the core of the global
democratic security community, and to give it the tools it needs to secure and
advance freedom. NATO is at the midpoint of a radical change from its Cold War
identity. It was then a security organization, wonderfully prepared to fight a
war, but not engaged in any operations at all. And now it is a military
alliance in action with operations around the world, from Pakistan,
Afghanistan, Iraq, to the Mediterranean and the Balkans.

In 2006, at NATO's November summit in Riga, we need to give NATO more of the
tools and political will it needs to do its job.

Let me mention three additional issues that will occupy much transatlantic
attention in the coming year. The American debate has escalated recently about
Iraq in a way that many find frustratingly disconnected from progress on the
ground. In the meantime, the European debate has moved forward in a welcome
direction. It sounds counter-intuitive to say the least, but Dominique de
Villepin has recently come out publicly in support of the United States
maintaining its military presence in Iraq. I never thought I would cite
Dominique de Villepin favorably on an Iraq issue, but there you are. Some sort
of corner clearly has been turned.

Whatever our disagreements with some European governments and, to be frank,
it was mostly France and Germany about the decision to remove Saddam Hussein
from power, European governments are coming to realize that democracy's failure
in Iraq would be a grave blow to our common security and to the prospects of
reform and stability throughout the Middle East, while success in Iraq would
set the stage for an advance of reform and stability throughout that region.

Time for Europe to Support Iraq's Democracy

But words are not enough. It is critical that Europeans act on that
realization. The Iraqi elections this week tomorrow, well, ongoing starting
today offer an opportunity to do so. The next Iraqi government will be fully
democratic, elected on the basis of a constitution that itself was
democratically adopted. This will give Europeans the chance to support fully,
without brackets and asterisks, the Iraqi people and their elected government.
That support can take many forms military, capacity-building, political
support but it needs to be unstinting.

In 2006, the challenge posed by Iran's regime will intensify. In 2005, the
United States worked closely with the EU-3 to curtail Iran's nuclear weapons
program. We closed a major gap with Europe, but we have not solved the problem
with Iran. The problem is larger than the nuclear weapons issue. Not only is
the regime in Tehran seeking nuclear weapons, but it supports terrorism. Not
only does it support terrorism, but the regime appears hostile to democracy in
principle. When you hear Ahmadi-Nejad making bizarre remarks, for example,
about Israel, what you are hearing is just another hostile dictatorship
desperately trying to legitimize its rule by externalizing its enemy. In its
current anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying form, this technique is as familiar to
you as it is ugly.

Notice that I speak only of the Iranian regime. Have the Iranian people chosen
the path of increasing international isolation? Do they support the regime and
its increasingly disconnected statements? We should not assume so. Iran has a
great civilization with a glorious past and great potential.

An Agenda for Hope for Iran

To draw from another context, we did not win the Cold War by assuming, as did
our adversaries, that communist regimes and their peoples were one. Thus, we
should not accept that theocracy and isolation are fate for the Iranian people.
International pressure on the regime may increase in 2006, as it should, but
the world's democracies should also reach out to the Iranian people. In
addition to our efforts to deal with the nuclear challenge, in 2006 the United
States and Europe should assemble an agenda for hope for Iran. Hostile
theocracy is not fate for Iran or for the region. Iraq's Shia community is
realizing its aspirations through democracy, and I doubt that this lesson will
be lost on either the Tehran regime or the Iranian people.

This brings me to a third major item of the U.S.-European agenda. Our combined
efforts to advance reform in the world's region with the greatest democracy
deficit: the broader Middle East. You recall I certainly recall the
skepticism and, frankly, the derision with which this initiative was greeted
when launched two years ago. Yet, at last month's ministerial meeting in
Bahrain, the Forum for the Future, officials from Europe and the region and
regional civil society leaders such as Said Ibrahim sat at one table, and one
after another lauded reform and democracy as new norms that would govern public
discourse and increasingly official policy.

Now, do the governments of the region embrace these norms with, let us say,
consistent enthusiasm? Well, of course not. But now the United States and
Europe, the two great centers of democratic legitimacy in the world, have put
our strength and our principles behind the reformers of the region, whether in
government or within civil society.

In 2006, let us reach out, assist and empower reforms in the region. Working
with them, we should seek, as Secretary Rice has said, to transform volatile
status quos that no longer serve our interests. We must not be impatient, but
we have started and we must keep faith with our values and with those in the
region who share them. Government officials frequently overestimate what can be
accomplished in the short run, but we also underestimate what we can accomplish
in the long run. We have made a start and we must continue.

One final point. Why Europe? What does Europe bring to the table? Let me
acknowledge, at the risk of igniting a debate from the first term, that
unilateral American action is, in theory, always an option, but it is not the
best option. We must do better. Together, America and Europe constitute a
single democratic civilization with common values. Together, America and Europe
constitute a quorum of democratic legitimacy. That is not a legal observation
so much as a political one, but I believe it to be accurate. When divided, we
create a moral fog over events and their significance. When united, we clarify
who are the friends of freedom.

Do we differ with Europe on tactics? Yes. Every day during the Cold War we
differed with the Europeans on tactics. But our united strategy, rooted in our
common values, led to victory. And in this present battle for freedom in the
face of this latest iteration of totalitarian ideology, our current strategy,
rooted in our values, with America and Europe together, will emerge successful.

Thank you very much.

(Applause.)

Question-and-Answer Session:

Now I am told that the rules are that I am to call on people for questions, and
without the aid of a filter, I will do my best.

MODERATOR: One small filter, though. Please identify yourself and also please
make it a question, and hopefully somewhat brief.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Thank you.

QUESTION: Mr. Fried, my name is Andrey Surzhanskiy. I'm correspondent with
ITAR-TASS News Agency of Russia. First of all, on energy issue, I don't know if
you're following the gas dispute between Russia and Ukraine. Russia has
threatened to cut off gas supplies to Ukraine if no compromise over pricing is
reached by January, I guess. And obviously, that would be a major blow to
Ukrainian economy. Is that a matter of concern for you?

And secondly, if I may, I never heard the reaction of the U.S. Administration
on the Russian-Germany gas project which is about construction. The gas
pipeline in Baltic Sea bypassing Poland and Baltic states. Do you have any
position on that issue?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Well

QUESTION: And do you share the view of the Russian officials that this project
would enhance energy security in Europe? Thank you.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Of course, the United States is following the issue
of energy relations in Eurasia very closely. We've obviously aware of the
discussions going on between Ukraine and Russia. We're also aware of Russian
statements about tripling gas prices to Georgia, all of this occurring right at
the beginning of the heating season.

These discussions are in progress and I think it would do little good for me to
comment on the details. I will say as a general comment that it would seem to
me to be in Russia's interests to have stable, reforming, successful countries
on its borders rather than vulnerable, insecure countries suffering from
economic crises and tensions. Russia can obviously speak to its own interests
better than I can, but I hope whatever emerges will support the Ukrainian and
Georgian efforts to advance economic reforms, to strengthen their sovereign and
to be through democracy, through economic reform and through strengthened
sovereignty better neighbors to Russia in the long term.

With respect to the gas pipeline, I have heard it said that this was not an
economically efficient way of transporting energy from Russia to Europe but had
a political purpose. I suppose you could ask former Chancellor Schroeder his
opinion, though he seems to have rather a large interest in it now.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Yes, I gather he did. I gather he still supports it.
It seems to me, again, that it would be in Russia's interest to have close
relations of confidence rather than relations of fear with its immediate
neighbors. We have always the United States has always advocated the best
possible relations between Russia and the Baltic countries, Russia and Poland,
and it is our belief that relations that are transparent, open, without
subtexts of political pressure, are apt to produce outcomes which are in
everyone's interests.

Ma'am.

QUESTION: Carol Giacomo with Reuters. Could you explain what you mean by an
agenda of hope for Iran? And are you working on this with the Europeans now?

AMBASSADOR FRIED: We have, for some time, had discussions with the EU-3 and
other Europeans about the Iran nuclear issue. But obviously, and without
getting into the details of conversations which need to be confidential, I
think there is a general understanding that the problem is wider than just a
nuclear problem. The nuclear problem is in some sense a symptom of a wider
problem.

By agenda of hope, I mean an agenda which is directed at support for the
Iranian people and Iranian society in what we believe are universal aspirations
and therefore shared by the Iranian people and Iranian society for freedom
and democracy.

The Iranian people should not be assumed to share the rather exotic views being
uttered now, every other day it seems, by Ahmadi-Nejad, and we need to reach
out directly to them. Now, I think the United States and Europe have the
capacity to do this, and I suspect we will talk more about it as time goes on.


QUESTION: Just to follow up, are you talking about support for civil society
groups, for instance?

AMBASSADOR FRIED: All of these things are things we're talking to the
Europeans about a lot of things, including this.

Sir.

QUESTION: I'm Morris Amitay, a former Foreign Service Officer who worked with
two of your predecessors many years ago. My question is about Great Britain. I
think you would agree that the UK is our closest ally and most important ally
in Europe, but I hear many complaints from my friends who come over the pond
from the defense side who say that there are cumbersome regulations and that
there's difficulty in getting defense industrial cooperation. Is there anything
that will be done about that?

AMBASSADOR FRIED: That has been an issue that has frustrated me and others
working in this Administration for some time. It's a tough issue and we're
always looking at different ways in which we can improve our defense
relationship with the UK. That relationship is obviously very good, but there
are some bureaucratic restrictions and we would like to find ways to make it
easier. It's not an easy issue.

Sir.

QUESTION: Umit Enginsoy, NTV Turkey. What's the U.S. strategy and agenda on
Turkey in 2006?

AMBASSADOR FRIED: We have had an intensive period of relations with Turkey,
marked by a disagreement over Iraq and then more recently marked by a lot of
collaboration with respect to Iraq, increasing cooperation with respect to the
PKK.

Now, in general, I would say that we have enormous respect for Turkey's
transformation over the past generation. And it's and we have expressed and
will continue to express our support for Turkey's European aspirations. We look
at Turkey as a natural partner in the world, particularly in the broader Middle
East, where Turkey is playing a leading role in supporting democracy and
reaching out to civil society. We work with Turkey very closely to support
reforms in Azerbaijan. To support Georgia, we look to Turkey as a friend and
partner, you know, throughout the Middle East.

Our agenda with Turkey? Well, we want to see to the degree we can and our
ability to do so is rather modest we want to help Turkey succeed in its EU
aspirations. Again, this is between Turkey and the European Union. But if there
are things we can do to help, we will. We want to work with Turkey in the
broader Middle East. We want to work with Turkey and NATO, as NATO reaches out
beyond its traditional area of responsibilities. It's a very rich agenda, and I
look forward to working with my Turkish colleagues.

Ma'am.

QUESTION: Thank you. This is Tulin Daloglu with Turkey's Star newspaper. Let me
have a follow-up. You mentioned Georgia and Azerbaijan

AMBASSADOR FRIED: Yes.

QUESTION: Turkey's helping the greater Middle East initiative, but you didn't
mention anything about Turkey's relations with Iran and Syria, which is now, I
guess, one of the most important issues now that the people here in Washington
are dealing with. How do you see Turkey, or what would you like to, you know,
have Turkey to deal with the Iranian issue specifically? Thank you.

AMBASSADOR FRIED: Well, I expect that as our policy on Iran develops, we will
be consulting with Turkey as a country as a NATO ally, a country that borders
Iran, and a country which has and is having a very successful experience of
democratic transformation.

Turkey is also a country with a party of strong Muslim roots becoming, as it
were, a kind of Muslim version of a Christian Democratic Party. I mean, this is
the AKP party in the way it describes itself. I don't believe in terms of model
I don't think in terms of models, but Turkey's democratic evolution has a lot
to show the world generally.

With respect to Syria, well, the world has a problem with Syria's support for
terrorism; and without pointing fingers ahead of the evidence, the latest
murders in Lebanon have re-raised questions which are, let us say, outstanding
and are very serious. And we look forward to working with Turkey also in this
direction.

Sir.

QUESTION: Thank you. I'm Vladimir Kara-Murza with RTVI Television, Russia. When
you spoke about advancing democracy in the former Soviet region Belarus,
Kyrgyzstan you didn't mention Russia. How does that advancing democracy in
Russia, is that an issue for the U.S. Administration, especially in terms of
its relations with Putin?

And then just quickly, is the U.S. prepared to cooperate with the European
Union investigation on the detainee issue?

AMBASSADOR FRIED: Well, we have to find a phrase other than former Soviet
space. You know, the United States doesn't usually refer to itself as the
former British Colonial space. (Laughter.) It's over, okay? It's over.

Russian democracy the time is gone when nations could simply wall off the
world and say non-interference in internal affairs is an absolute condition of
state sovereignty. The United States has every every country in the world is
interested in the internal affairs of the United States.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

AMBASSADOR FRIED: No, no. I get we get charged with all manner of sins and
I'm trying to address it.

We care very much about the course of Russian democracy. We have learned that
our relations with a state are not independent of that state's relationship to
its own society. That is not a comment directed at Russia, but a comment about
our own foreign policy and a principle which this Administration certainly
espouses. Whether it is the issue of the law and NGOs or the issue of freedom
of the press or the issue of social freedom in Russia, these are all issues
that concern us. We believe that a strong nation is strong because it has a
strong society, not simply because it has a strong center of power. And our
commitment to democracy in Russia is well established. It will continue. Our
cooperation with the Russian Government on issues of mutual concern is also
well established. And being the United States Government, we think we have the
ability to do more than one thing at the same time. And that's our intention.

QUESTION: Detainees?

AMBASSADOR FRIED: Ah. Well, Secretary Rice was just in Europe last week and
talked about detainees at length at every stop, including devoting a couple of
hours of concentrated conversation with all of Europe's foreign almost all of
Europe's foreign ministers, both NATO and the EU, about this issue. She said a
very great deal. We have talked to European Union officials. No doubt this
dialogue will continue, but Secretary Rice was open, candid, serious, and the
reaction of the European foreign ministers was, as you've seen, extremely
positive. So that's a good beginning to a discussion which doubtless will
continue but has now been framed up in a good way.

Someone back here. Sir.

QUESTION: Tomicah Tillemann with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I was
hoping you could discuss the Administration's response to the failure by the
OSCE to certify election results in Azerbaijan and what you think we need to do
in order to get democracy back on track in that country.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Well, look at the OSCE statement carefully. It is
true that the OSCE found that the elections in Azerbaijan did not meet the
standard of free and fair. That's what they found. We think that's right. But
they also noted that the elections had been in many aspects an improvement over
previous ones. We were we followed the we, the U.S. Government, followed
those elections very, very closely. We had exit poll results which gave us a
good sense of the size, the magnitude of the problems. To put it rather
crudely, these elections were not free and fair, but neither were they a
complete joke. And there is a big difference between elections which are flawed
and elections which are a total travesty.

The Azerbaijan the Government of Azerbaijan has agreed to rerun elections in
most, if not all, of the districts in which problems were so great that doubt
was cast on the actual results. If these elections are rerun fairly, then the
government will have gone a long way, though not all the way, in addressing
some of the international community's concerns. Now, it's more than just how
you count the ballots. There are a lot of elements of democracy. And in the
case of Azerbaijan, we have to be and in the case of other countries whose
elections were not free and fair but not a travesty perhaps Kazakhstan is in
that category we need to be very clear about what it is we want, which is
democracy, and not just plebiscite dictatorship or authoritarianism but a
culture of democracy.

But also we need to work with governments which are working themselves to
improve things. If the Azerbaijan Government invites the OSCE in, if they give
space for ODIHR to make its reports, we have to take that into account as well.
There are other governments who have made it clear they have no intention of
inviting ODIHR in, that they don't care about the opinion of the international
community.

So this is a place where moral clarity needs to be maintained, but also
tactical realism about what it is you want to accomplish this year and with
this election and we have to be clear about both relentless in our pursuit of
our objectives, but also willing to work with governments that are moving, and
as long as they are moving in roughly the right direction.

Yes.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) Voice of America. The Polish Foreign Minister is going to
be in Washington next week. According to reports, the Poles are trying to
obtain certain increased benefits from the American side in the area of
military cooperation, but not only. Are relations with the new Polish
Government more complicated than with the previous one?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: We have we know the leaders of the incoming Polish
Government, whether it's Prime Minister Marcinkiewicz or President Kaczynski,
Foreign Minister Meller and, of course, you know, AEI's former employee, Radik
Sikorski. These are good people. We know them well. We've worked with them.
They know us. This is a relationship that's close, but Poland is an important
ally. Poland is a serious country.

Of course, Poland wants to develop its military cooperation with the United
States. This is perfectly natural. Our military cooperation, because of
Poland's rather successful leadership in Iraq, has grown. This year, our
assistance for Poland has reached $100 million. Frankly, would I like to see
even more assistance? Well, it could be put to good use. The Poles know what
they're doing in the military sphere.

What we will succeed in doing and how we sort this out, I couldn't say. But we
look forward to good relations with the Polish Government and good cooperation.
And it isn't, of course the U.S.-Polish relationship is not a function of how
many dollars come out of the U.S. budget to Poland. We are allies and not just
in name. The United States and Poland see many critical issues, such as support
for Ukrainian democracy and sovereignty as common issues of common concern. I
have no doubt that we will work successfully with the current Polish
Government, as we have worked with every Polish Government since 1989.

Sir.

QUESTION: Alberto (inaudible) with the Embassy of Italy. In your opinion, which
role will be played by Belarus in the short- to mid-term in transatlantic
relations and how this will affect the transatlantic relations? Thank you.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: What role Belarus will play. Well, Belarus is, in
fact, the last dictatorship in Europe. It is an issue of common concern. We
want to see we believe that the Belarusian people deserve better than a
dictatorship, which is isolating them from their natural place, which is in
Europe, a nation among nations. This is an issue of common concern. The United
States and Europe, and then key countries in Europe, want to support the
Belarusian people. I would think that Russia would also want to see Belarus
begin to develop in a democratic direction. That seems to me to be something
that would suit Russia's interest, but again, Russia has to speak for itself.

I believe the United States and Europe will intensify efforts to support the
Belarusian people and Belarusian society in 2006 because this is when
Lukashenko has proclaimed his intention to hold so-called elections.

Sir.

MODERATOR: Excuse me, why don't we take two more questions, if Ambassador Fried
has the time, and then we'll wrap it up. Thank you.

QUESTION: Harry Dunphy, AP. You mentioned Dominique de Villepin's statement as
Europe having turned the corner on Iraq. Could you be more specific as to what
you would like to see the Europeans do there after the elections? Thank you.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Well, it depends on the country. There are some
countries like Germany who have made it clear they cannot send their own forces
to Iraq, and we're not asking the impossible. But every European country,
whether it has troops in Iraq or not, should support the next government. There
are various ways countries can do so politically, through capacity-building,
through more police training and through the hardest method of support to
describe is political support for the Iraqi people, to remove this lingering
sense that Iraqi democracy is somehow suspect because of disagreements over the
removal of Saddam Hussein.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AmirN



Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Nice twist to the spin to get even intellectuals like yourself believing that the diabolical capitalist infidel pigs have sucked the life-blood of your nation for generations,


Followed by:

Quote:
I'm also aware of the complete opposite viewpoint, like yours, that the west did nothing but mind its own business, and Iranians are solely to blame for Iran.
------------------

Ah, now you are either assuming too much from my post, or simply putting words in my mouth....


Oh, I see. I’m the one who “either assumes too much, or is simply putting words in your mouth?”

Quote:
No the west is not blameless, the law of unintended concequences has often been a factor in US/Iranian affairs.


Hmmm… “unintended consequences”…

I wonder, how much of the consequences were “unintended,” and how much just “unimportant” for the west? And by the “west,” I was not only referring to the US, but also Great Britain, France (though less), Germany (much less), and Russia (much more, though I realize Russia has not conventionally been considered part of the west).

Quote:
What I said also about the corruption and propoganda on the part of the mullahs is also dead-on accurate.


I don’t think anyone on this site would disagree with that assessment, and neither did I.

Quote:
The fact is, I was simply teasing you a bit....with good intent....


Oh, please don’t tease me so…you know I can’t handle it!!

Quote:
I would like though, for you to produce a single post of mine where I "defend Islam".... that is an incorrect statement.


Ok, here’s two:

Quote:
Down the centuries, it has, like any other interpretation by man of the One and it's nature, taken on other meanings and been turned inside out by those who would justify their political ambitions using religion as a vehicle.

Islam is no different in this respect, and it is an internal struggle today to resolve the matter of extremism within Islam.


Quote:
There is a new air of optimism and confidence in many places that an Islam that is moderate, tolerant and democratic not only should - but will - actually be the future.


If that’s not presenting a defense of Islam, I don’t know what is.
Quote:
We have talked much about the changing nature of mindsets...you see Islam as a static dogma....where in reality any religion is by its very nature a product of those that adhear to its tenets....


Actually, religion is by its nature a dogma. A dogma which has been presented to the world in the form that the CREATOR of that religion presented and intended.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that religion is not a dogma? That we can just change it to suit us? To take out the parts that make us…”uncomfortable,” and keep the parts that are trendy and fashionable?

I thought we were talking about the same thing here…religion. You seem to be referring to Gucci’s fall collection.

Besides, allow me to refer you to a recent post in this site…

http://www.activistchat.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=7471


I have highlighted a few key paragraphs:

Quote:
Now for the first time, a key Pentagon intelligence agency involved in homeland security is delving into Islam's holy texts to answer whether Islam is being radicalized by the terrorists or is already radical. Military brass want a better understanding of what's motivating the insurgents in Iraq and the terrorists around the globe, including those inside America who may be preparing to strike domestic military bases. The enemy appears indefatigable, even more active now than before 9/11.

Are the terrorists really driven by self-serving politics and personal demons? Or are they driven by religion? And if it's religion, are they following a manual of war contained in their scripture?...

Dealing with the threat on a tactical and operational level through counterstrikes and capture has proven only marginally successful. Now military leaders want to combat it from a strategic standpoint, using informational warfare, among other things. A critical part of that strategy involves studying Islam, including the Quran and the hadiths, or traditions of Muhammad.

"Today we are confronted with a stateless threat that does not have at the strategic level targetable entities: no capitals, no economic base, no military formations or installations," states a new Pentagon briefing paper I've obtained. "Yet political Islam wages an ideological battle against the non-Islamic world at the tactical, operational and strategic level. The West's response is focused at the tactical and operation level, leaving the strategic level -- Islam -- unaddressed."

So far the conclusions of intelligence analysts assigned to the project, who include both private contractors and career military officials, contradict the commonly held notion that Islam is a peaceful religion hijacked or distorted by terrorists. They've found that the terrorists for the most part are following a war-fighting doctrine articulated through Muhammad in the Quran, elaborated on in the hadiths, codified in Islamic or sharia law, and reinforced by recent interpretations or fatwahs.

"Islam is an ideological engine of war (Jihad)," concludes the sensitive Pentagon briefing paper. And "no one is looking for its off switch."

Why? One major reason, the briefing states, is government-wide "indecision [over] whether Islam is radical or being radicalized."

So, which is it? "Strategic themes suggest Islam is radical by nature," according to the briefing, which goes on to cite the 26 chapters of the Quran dealing with violent jihad and the examples of the Muslim prophet, who it says sponsored "terror and slaughter" against unbelievers.

"Muhammad's behaviors today would be defined as radical," the defense document says, and Muslims today are commanded by their "militant" holy book to follow his example. It adds: Western leaders can no longer afford to overlook the "cult characteristics of Islam."

It also ties Muslim charity to war. Zakat, the alms-giving pillar of Islam, is described in the briefing as "an asymmetrical war-fighting funding mechanism." Which in English translates to: combat support under the guise of tithing. Of the eight obligatory categories of disbursement of Muslim charitable donations, it notes that two are for funding jihad, or holy war. Indeed, authorities have traced millions of dollars received by major jihadi terror groups like Hamas and al-Qaida back to Saudi and other foreign Isamic charities and also U.S. Muslim charities, such as the Holy Land Foundation.

According to the Quran, jihad is not something a Muslim can opt out of. It demands able-bodied believers join the fight. Those unable -- women and the elderly -- are not exempt; they must give "asylum and aid" (Surah 8:74) to those who do fight the unbelievers in the cause of Allah.



Seems I’m not the only one who thinks that Islam itself is malicious, not just the few “extremist” psychos that walk around with the Qur’an in one hand and a grenade in the other.
_________________
I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage

Naqshe Rostam
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Down the centuries, it has, like any other interpretation by man of the One and it's nature, taken on other meanings and been turned inside out by those who would justify their political ambitions using religion as a vehicle.

Islam is no different in this respect, and it is an internal struggle today to resolve the matter of extremism within Islam.


Quote:
There is a new air of optimism and confidence in many places that an Islam that is moderate, tolerant and democratic not only should - but will - actually be the future.


If that’s not presenting a defense of Islam, I don’t know what is.

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

A defense of Islam as it exists today? You must be halucinating....what I have stated is fact...Islam is not a STATIC dogma...even the article you posted refers to the INTERPRETATION being promoted by exteremists.

No it's not Gucci ...change beliefs like one changes cloths...(chuckle)...this is more like the biological fact that one replaces every cell in the body every 7 years or so.

The change (and inevitable it is) that I have illustrated is not a "defense" of Islam, though you choose to interpret it as such..(and many choose to discount those things that are not black or white).

what I state is fact, change is inevitable...No dogma exists without those that believe in it....like individual cells in the body....sometimes cells go a bit off, the DNA is corrupted, and cancer forms....

My point here is that Islam is a cancer patient...one cannot heal unless one recognizes that disease exists first, and a method of treatment..secondly.

Adapt or die is the evolutionary law of all species, heal or die is the rule among cancer patients....whether Islam survives the changes it must inevitably process internally is up to the Muslim community....will Islam be the same as it exists today? No.

Islam itself is facing an identity crisis, as Muslims worldwide have condemed those that have chosen to foster "holy war".

There once was a dogma ...an idea if you will....clung to with impunity by the catholic church for a long time that the Earth was flat....and the center of the universe.

Find me one person on Earth that still believes this.

Change is inevitable....


When I talk about "unintended concequences" this is the process of not being able to accurately predict the outcome of any given policy prior to being implemented...for better or for worse.

"Oh, please don’t tease me so…you know I can’t handle it!! "

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger......(chuckle)....for the experience.

And I speak from experience, back in '91 I became very ill after a long term exposure to industrial solvents...it took me exactly 7 years to recover 100%.....now my immune system is so strong I haven't had so much as a common cold in the last 5 years.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AmirN



Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 3:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
A defense of Islam as it exists today? You must be halucinating....


So if you are not talking about and defending the “Islam as it exists today,” what Islam are you talking about? The Islam of the future? How do you know what the Islam of tomorrow will be, if any different than today’s, that you wish to defend it? If it’s not here yet, how can we judge it? Therefore, the only Islam we can fairly judge is the Islam of the past and the present. Both stink worse than garbage.

Besides, as I have previously pointed out, if this Islam changes from the original teachings and acts and recommendations of its creator, Mohammad, it is no longer Islam… I don’t know what it is…

Quote:
Islam is not a STATIC dogma...


You’re way off on this one, buddy. What was that choice word you used?... Oh, yes… “hallucinating.”

Islam, and religion in general, is the desire and recommendation of GOD, presented by his messengers. How is that not dogma? And by definition, dogma is not subject to change, or fluid. Who are we to change the word of GOD?

Quote:
My point here is that Islam is a cancer patient...


You’re close, friend, very close. If only I could show you the next more logical statement…That Islam is not the cancer patient, but the cancer tumor itself.

So who is the cancer patient? Humanity.

The folly I see with your point of view is that you’re trying to somehow save the tumor, thinking it to be the patient. The patient will do just fine without the tumor, many just refuse to accept this. They think that just because this tumor has been attached to the patient for so long, that it is an essential part of the patient. So they try to figure ways to make the tumor less aggressive, and curtail it in order to prevent it from killing the patient.

WAKE UP, AND JUST REMOVE THE TUMOR ALREADY!

The point is, there was a time when there was no islam. It is possible for the world to exist without islam again. I realize that this event is highly unlikely, but I believe that it would pose a greater good for humanity. As such, though I know I will not make a full impact on islam’s grip on the world, I will nonetheless oppose it, because I think it’s the right thing to do.

Islam is garbage. And it’s stinking up the whole house. Instead of realizing it to be garbage, people now wish to place a lot of perfume on it. All the perfume in the world won’t mask the real stink. Some day, we will all be better served by just dumping out the garbage, and stop buying perfume.

Quote:
Islam itself is facing an identity crisis, as Muslims worldwide have condemed those that have chosen to foster "holy war".


I’m not so sure about that. Perhaps a large portion of Moslems are truly pacifists, and condemn these acts. But the acts they really condemn are the ones that ultimately cause themselves hurt and pain. For example, suicide bombings in Jordan, Iraq, etc where the Arabs or Moslems themselves are also victims.

The truth is, if they themselves are fine and secure, they won’t raise an eyebrow at other acts of terrorism/jihad. For example, if Britain, US, or Israel gets bombed. They may voice a weak condemnation publicly for political reasons, but privately they giggle. I don’t know if you are aware of this, but the vast majority of Arabs and Moslems love Osama. He is a hero to them. So, are they really condemning “holy war?”

Quote:
When I talk about "unintended concequences" this is the process of not being able to accurately predict the outcome of any given policy prior to being implemented...for better or for worse.


I know what the phrase “unintended consequences” means. What I was questioning was the accuracy of using it in describing the western policies. I think a more accurate description would be “indifferent consequences.” Indifferent, of course, in the sense that they didn’t really give a rat’s behind about Iran or Iranians. Their indifference changes, though, once the consequences come back to bite themselves in the behind. Then they portray the consequences as…unintended.
_________________
I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage

Naqshe Rostam
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 4:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The point is, there was a time when there was no islam. It is possible for the world to exist without islam again. I realize that this event is highly unlikely, but I believe that it would pose a greater good for humanity. As such, though I know I will not make a full impact on islam’s grip on the world, I will nonetheless oppose it, because I think it’s the right thing to do.

Islam is garbage. And it’s stinking up the whole house. Instead of realizing it to be garbage, people now wish to place a lot of perfume on it. All the perfume in the world won’t mask the real stink. Some day, we will all be better served by just dumping out the garbage, and stop buying perfume.



Yes, and Hitler thought getting rid of the Jews would pose a greater good for humanity.....so what are you suggesting here as a solution....genocide?

I like my solution better, that Islam declare "jihad" on the cancer of extremism within the body of Islam, perhaps after it will be unrecognizable as the Islam you have come to know and love...chuckle....but that change as I said is inevitable, for if it cannot adapt to modern times and a civilized relationship with other religions and cultures in peaceful co-existance...then indeed the alternative would really suck for a lot of people.

As khomeni once stated, if the mullahs in Iran dissapear, then Islam will cease to exist within 50 years..

Well, they are sure pushing the international community toward "regime change" as the only viable alternative to a better future for your children and mine....

And a grand social experiment it would be, to see if he was correct or not....but I won't be around 50 years from now to know.

In any case, there's a large historical dustbin waiting to recieve the mullahs of Iran....that much you can count on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AmirN



Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Yes, and Hitler thought getting rid of the Jews would pose a greater good for humanity.....so what are you suggesting here as a solution....genocide?


What?!

How you chose to jump from point A to point Z, with no link between, I can’t understand. When did I ever suggest such recourse? Now who’s putting words in someone else’s mouth?

You know very well, as I have specifically pointed out repeatedly before, that I am not condemning the Moslems of the world, for they are humans too. My condemnation is of an idea, a religion…(Islam more so, but actually all religion). You very well realize that there is a huge difference.

Furthermore, I have never promoted the idea of violence to solve anything. I say Islam is filth and garbage, and we need to get rid of it. I don’t aim to get rid of the Moslems. All I wish to promote is the falsity of Islam, and thereby help people realize Islam for the garbage it is, and hopefully slowly abandon it voluntarily. If they do, great. If they do not, I’ll just continue talking and writing. I would never take up arms against them, to either convert them by force or to exterminate them. Remember, these acts are the foundations of my arguments against Islam. Do you think I would resort to do the same thing I have been so highly critical of all this time?

Quote:
I like my solution better, that Islam declare "jihad" on the cancer of extremism within the body of Islam,


Yeah…I think my idea that islam IS the cancer is still more accurate. You and the Moslems though, are welcome to waist your time trying to save this tumor.

Quote:
perhaps after it will be unrecognizable as the Islam you have come to know and love...chuckle....but that change as I said is inevitable, for if it cannot adapt to modern times and a civilized relationship with other religions and cultures in peaceful co-existance...then indeed the alternative would really suck for a lot of people.


First, as I have said, if you change islam, it is no longer islam, but something else. As you point out, “it will be unrecognizable as the islam…” If it is unrecognizable as islam of old, it is not islam. So, why bother to even call it that? It just becomes semantics. But why is it important to continue calling it islam? Because people are erroneously attached to this filth, and are unwilling to let go. They think Allah will punish and curse them. Do they not realize though, that if they change islam, the islam given to us by God and Mohammad, that they will be cursed and punished regardless?

So don’t go at this half-baked. After realizing that it is flawed, abandon it instead of dressing it up. Once it is abandoned, we can be free to implement ideas and beliefs that are based on truth and justice. Anything less is a mockery.

You say “if it cannot adapt to modern times and a civilized relationship with other religions and cultures in peaceful co-existence.” This statement implies that you realize that currently Islam is falling short of having a civilized relationship and peaceful co-existence with others. Think about what you just said. If this is true, you also realize that islam is filth. That islam is the sociopath of the world. For no reasonable person can think it is OK for a cultural idea to exist in this world which is incapable of having a civilized relationship with other cultures and live in peaceful co-existence.

So, if you really see islam for the filth it is, why do think it’s a better idea to change some of its aspects instead of dumping the whole thing?

Furthermore, from an ideological standpoint, I have tried to point out before that if you dabble with change in a religion (especially islam), you end up voiding the premise upon which it is based, and therefore rendering the whole concept null and void. The sham becomes an even bigger sham. The hypocrisy becomes more evident than ever.

Quote:
....but I won't be around 50 years from now to know.


Who knows, dear friend, hopefully you will be around. But do me favor, take my medical advice regarding the following. If you ever notice a lump growing in your body, pay close attention to it. And if you notice it getting bigger, please take steps to remove it as completely as possible (via consultation with a doctor, of course). Please don’t try to change it so it becomes “kinder and gentler,” for it will not. It is not its nature to change. You will only lose precious time before you realize it’s too late. Cut it out and kill it, before it kills you. I realize that by then you may regard it as a part of yourself, and perhaps grown fond of it, but please realize that you will be fine without it, and only when you are without it.
_________________
I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage

Naqshe Rostam
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 4:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Amir,

Needless to say you insulted about a billion and a half muslims on this planet by implying that they were garbage for believing in "garbage" as you called it.

Now one fundemental thing you are missing here is that Cristians, Jews and Muslims are all decendants of the three sons of Abraham (and we can discuss DNA minutia at a later point...as I said, what's DNA got to do with it?

It is essentially a very dysfunctional family that in order to survive, must choose co-existance.

You like the Beatles....OK fine. Now imagine this....you are at a U2 concert, Bono gets this headband handed to him, he puts it on and it has a cross, a star of David, and a crecent....and the words "CO-EXIST" on it.

He then explains to the croud that it was inspired by graffitti on a wall he saw on the way to the show....and asks the simple question I now ask of you....between these three sons of Abraham..."Where is the love?"

See, your comment leaves no room for that, and possibly inspires others that have not so peaceful intent that may agree with your assesment (garbage) to do what I questioned you about.

See, I don't think you're insane, so I simply asked you for an explanation, not your insults or defensive response (which was a bit overblown) Your miscaracterizations of my comments was justified in describing as "halucinations"...so I did.

On top of that, you offer no solution, simply voicing an emotional response to the fact that criminals run your nation (Iran) in the name of a religion that they are actively running into the ground (though they think they are initiating a "rennasance" of Islamic thought.

This is very common among meglomaniacs, as they think they have all the answers to everyone else's problems, and a policy of "be like us, or die".

That is beyond religion altogether....and that Islam is a vehicle for that intent is a tragedy for the billion and ahalf muslims on this planet you have just insulted by including them in this criminal mindset.

Man, don't ever generalize a lump sum definition of people with me, I'll pick you apart till hell freezes over, and you've just found out what a taste of that is like.

BTW, Happy New Year...and many more to you and your's.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blank



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 5:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AmirN wrote:
I don’t wish to inflate Israel either, but let’s face facts, and let’s give credit where it is due.

Some of the most brilliant minds that ever lived were of Jewish decent. The field of modern physics was created by them. Who could forget the greatest mind ever, and my personal hero, Albert Einstein? And J. Robert Oppenheimer? As well as countless others.

Imagine what the world would have lost, if someone like Einstein had fallen victim to the Nazis; even though I realize that he published his greatest works prior to the Nazis rise to power. Now also imagine, how many future Einsteins were indeed lost to the world during the Nazi years before they could fulfill their future potential. What contributions would some of the millions that were killed have potentially made? We’ll never know.

Israel is a modern marvel. Simply because it exists. I still cannot fully comprehend the resilience which has served such a relatively small country, which is completely surrounded and outnumbered by Arabs who are still hostile to it. And although some of these Arab states have abandoned a realistic hope for Israel’s destruction, they would all jump back on that wagon if the opportunity presented itself.

What is even more amazing is that Israel’s share of natural resources is relatively limited. Compare it to most of the Arab states and Iran, who have access to so much oil. It is unfortunate that these later countries lag so much behind. And the conditions in those countries are appalling, compared to what they should be since they are potentially rich countries. And why is that? Yes, I know the Western countries had something to do with it, by “cheating” them and “robbing” them of their oil. But that’s only one part of the answer. The fact is, they could not rob and cheat us, if we did not allow them. So a lot of the responsibility falls on our own shoulders. Obviously, in the short term, the reason why Iran lags so much is because of the dictatorial IRI regime which does not have the best interest of the country in mind. They only have their own personal interests in mind, and how to stay in power longer and rob the country, and how to spread their stupid barbaric religion. So, all the natural resource in the world doesn’t amount to anything, if the system is such that the leaders don’t truly care about the country.

But I digress. Back to Israel. Look at the parts that are dominated by Israelis, and look at the parts dominated by Palestinians. Compare Israeli civilization with Palestinian slums. Some may argue that they are slums because Israelis made it such, and stuck the Palestinians there. I don’t agree. I think they are slums, because Palestinians made it such. And that’s because of the different attitudes of these people. The Palestinians are more preoccupied with death and war than with helping themselves. Some would argue that they have turned to violence and war because they have nothing else, no hope. I would say the opposite. They have nothing else, no hope, because they have turned to violence. Obviously, this is a vicious cycle, regardless of which came first. But to break that cycle, these Arabs need to realize that they need to put their swords down long enough to build a life for themselves, and coexist with the Israelis. But, Arab mentality is contrary to that.

If the Arabs and the Arab wanna-bes like Monkey-Nejad and the IRI ever got their wish (which they never will), all of Israel would start to look like the rest of the Arab countries. A barren backward land of uncivilized ignorance. Maybe that would make them all happy. It’s hard to live in a crap-hole, when next door to them there is a Paradise. Misery loves company.


Dear Amir:
Let me tell you my take about all these inflammatory statements from iri in general, and Antarinejad in specific, and what it means to me. Iri knows the country is in a shamble, and they also know how much the people hate them, there is a great possibility of uprising and another revolution. Sooo, they are trying very hard to do the same thing they did in the 80’s they created a war, between Iran & Iraq to keep people’s mind off their miserable lives and horrific situation. War is the one thing that units a country, and at the same time keeps people’s mind off their goals (uprising). Therefore, with all these provocative statements coming from Antar’s mouth, iri hopes there will be an attack either by Israel or the US on Iran, which would be their salvation to stay in power and hope that they can get people once again united and too busy with the war to think about another revolution. Iri is constantly promoting if Israel or US does this or that Iranian people are ready to fight……blah blah blah... they are already preparing people for their plan…
I believe iri is trying its hardest to provoke Israel and the US into a war, so they can keep their theocracy going for years……….imho
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AmirN



Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Needless to say you insulted about a billion and a half muslims on this planet by implying that they were garbage for believing in "garbage" as you called it.


There you go again, making silly assumptions. You very well know that I make a distinction between an idea such as “islam” and the people that follow that idea, or “muslims.” I believe this is the fourth time I am explaining this fact to you. It seems you need a point explained to you repeatedly before you grasp the concept.

I wonder, do you honestly lack the ability to comprehend this concept, or do you purposely ignore it in order to villify what I say and create an over-dramatic effect for your arguments?

“Believing in garbage” and “being garbage” itself are two separate things. Please read the messages and words carefully before putting “words in my mouth” as you always like to say.

Quote:
Bono gets this headband handed to him, he puts it on and it has a cross, a star of David, and a crecent....and the words "CO-EXIST" on it.


I see nothing wrong with that. I applaud everyone and anyone who believes we should all co-exist. In fact, that’s my goal for humanity. Never have I implied that anyone should not co-exist. It is the various religions themselves that imply an aversion to co-existence…especially Islam. So I think this comment of yours needs to be directed at the religious zealots, not me.

Quote:
....and asks the simple question I now ask of you....between these three sons of Abraham..."Where is the love?"
See, your comment leaves no room for that, and possibly inspires others that have not so peaceful intent that may agree with your assesment (garbage) to do what I questioned you about.


My comments only criticize islam itself. I have also repeatedly stated that I would never condone any violent acts directed at anyone because of their religious convictions. In fact, I would strongly condemn such acts.

To imply that my comments leave no room for “love” is bizarre. I criticize a religion which is based on intolerance, bigotry, violence, piracy, barbarity, abuse of women and children, and world dominance. If I am critical of this religion, you ask “where is the love?” No, I have no love for such a religion. I have no love for evil.

Quote:
See, I don't think you're insane


Well, thank you for that professional opinion, doctor.

Quote:
On top of that, you offer no solution, simply voicing an emotional response to the fact that criminals run your nation (Iran) in the name of a religion


First, one does not necessarily have to offer a solution to a flawed idea in order to be justified in criticizing it.

Second, the solution posed by me is:
1. Foremost, removal of this barbaric and tyrannical theocratic regime. This is my first and utmost goal; this is 99% of my goal; the rest is just gravy.
2. Complete separation of state and religion (which would naturally follow from point 1)
3. Establishment of a democratic and secular government (again, a consequence of point 1)
4. Education of the public in general, about all subject matters. But also, objective, truthful, and historical education of the public regarding their religion, islam. This education will surely not make islam disappear, but it will at least open up the eyes and ears of the public to the truth. The truth about their religion. I don’t suggest that the government necessarily take a role in this “religious education.” But at least allow the freedom so that individuals who wish to partake in this education voluntarily can do so.
5. Freedom of religion for all. Regardless of the specific religion, be it Bahai, Buddhist, Zartoshdti, Jew, Christian, Moslem, atheist, agnostic, or whatever else. The “love” you ask for I can give, in the form of tolerance for the individuals of each and every religion. We can “love” the members of a religion without loving that particular religion. This seems to be the concept that you can’t grasp. But I think that room must exist also for criticism of each and every one of these religions by those who wish to criticize them.

This list is certainly not exhaustive for my desired “solutions” for Iran, but it is a start.


Quote:
Man, don't ever generalize a lump sum definition of people with me,


I don’t think I have generalized any lump sum of people. I have criticized islam, and I will continue to do so. If you wish to continue to insist that I am lumping all Moslems together by criticizing islam, that would be your misunderstanding and shortcoming, not mine.

Oppenheimer wrote:
I'll pick you apart till hell freezes over, and you've just found out what a taste of that is like.


I’ve tried to express my views and opinions here, without resorting to insulting you just because we don’t agree.

But if you wish to resort to insults, that’s fine.

I have yet to see you pick anything apart, much less anything I said. So no, you have not delivered anything that resembles any taste or sample.

And in what imaginary world did you think you could ever “pick me apart?” If you think you can, bring it on.

Oh, and I don’t believe in hell. So feel free to wait for it to freeze, thaw, and scorch all you want…it matters not to me.
_________________
I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage

Naqshe Rostam
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 10:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Blank,

There's only one flaw in IRI strategy in trying to start a war....besides the fact that the world is hip to the intent you described accurately.

This is the fact that if the international community decides they have no other recourse but to give them what they want, they won't be in power long enough for the IRI to pull a hostile (to the IRI) public in their camp in support of the war.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 12:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Amir,

....Chuckle...

Let me then (since you completely missed the irony in my statement) explain to you exactly what I mean by the following....

"Man, don't ever generalize a lump sum definition of people with me, I'll pick you apart till hell freezes over, and you've just found out what a taste of that is like. "

First, I know very well you are an athiest, which in some ways should give you an objective opinion on the nature of God....or hell...if that exists on some other dimention other than the physical one we know as life.

I personally believe one creates their own heaven or hell right here on Earth....so yes indeed, you can look around for yourself and find all the evidence you need to see the truth of the existance of hell...and if you look hard enough...a slice of heaven or two.

Now to the ironic bit..... "lump" in my statement above was in reference to this...

Quote:
"If you ever notice a lump growing in your body, pay close attention to it. And if you notice it getting bigger, please take steps to remove it as completely as possible (via consultation with a doctor, of course). Please don’t try to change it so it becomes “kinder and gentler,” for it will not. It is not its nature to change. You will only lose precious time before you realize it’s too late. Cut it out and kill it, before it kills you."

because....your quote here was in conclusion and associated with this....

Quote:
"You’re close, friend, very close. If only I could show you the next more logical statement…That Islam is not the cancer patient, but the cancer tumor itself.

So who is the cancer patient? Humanity.

The folly I see with your point of view is that you’re trying to somehow save the tumor, thinking it to be the patient. The patient will do just fine without the tumor, many just refuse to accept this. They think that just because this tumor has been attached to the patient for so long, that it is an essential part of the patient. So they try to figure ways to make the tumor less aggressive, and curtail it in order to prevent it from killing the patient.

WAKE UP, AND JUST REMOVE THE TUMOR ALREADY! "


And why did I describe this as a generalization of people? Because.....you yourself have "attached" people and Islam in the same phrase below. Accurate it is to say that the body of Islam is made up of the people who believe in it, for what is Islam without people who believe in this dogma. See, you misunderstood something...I never said religion was not associated with dogma, I simply stated that it was not a STATIC (or unmovable, unchangeable in interpretation) dogma.

Now in your own words you say....

Quote:
"Because people are erroneously attached to this filth, and are unwilling to let go. They think Allah will punish and curse them. Do they not realize though, that if they change islam, the islam given to us by God and Mohammad, that they will be cursed and punished regardless?"


So, it is logical for any reader to assess your following statement...

Quote:
“Believing in garbage” and “being garbage” itself are two separate things. Please read the messages and words carefully before putting “words in my mouth” as you always like to say.


...As an intelectual attempt to cover your ass when caught up in the inconsistancy of your statements....and believe me, I do read your words VERY carefully (twice) before I choose to interpret them.

Which is in a sense the whole of my point about the nature of Islam, that it is not so much God's word (which you could not accept as an athiest as being "the word of God" or handed down by "God's messenger" or scribed by God himself....and as such, we agree on this point that it is a fallable human interpretation of a human vision of (or halucination if you will...chuckle) of the nature of God, and the interaction with humankind.

But then this begs the question if God made man in his own image, are we not then ourselves God?

In a very real sense then all religious dogma is geared to fostering a separateness from God, an assumption (human and therefore flawed) that this entity that is called GOD, Allah, or whatever is apart, distinct from humanity, something one prays to, worships....diefies, or curses at times.

Thing about Buddism is that it is by its very nature, a studied observation into one's own nature, and that of all things, as NOT SEPARATE from each other.

As I said, all things are made of atoms, and I'll elaborate by saying that the essence of life in not separate from the universe itself....thus if one is to put a name to this essence, and call it God (or whatever) then truly the very fact of being alive means one is "one with God", or by inference..."though art God".

Therefore it is impossible to be an athiest or risk denying one's very nature.

In any case, this is your personal choice, and it's yor life, I don't judge you ( just so you don't misinterpret me on this) or begrudge you your non-acceptance of reality.

By the way, I have no problem with your vision for Iran's future, but I think I hit the nail on the head when I said that your viewpoint of Islam stems from the Islamic criminals running Iran....and if this were not the case, I doubt very much (you being an athiest) that you'd have an opinion one way or another about Islam, or any other religion for that matter...It just wouldn't concern you, I think.

In fact, since one creates their own reality, it is up to the Muslims of the world to create the reality of Islam that best serves those that believe in it, and since we both agree that co-existance is essential to humanity's future, I think a vast majority of Muslims will see the logic in that, and choose to create an Islam that thrives in co-existance, and expell those fractional elements who choose to interpret for others what is "best" at the expense of co-existance.

Therefore, I maintain that Islam is subject to change from within, is not Static, and will survive the sickness of terrorism that has infected it.

This is not a "defense" of Islam, simply an observational analysis.

I know you like to try and buttonhole those you converse with into - those who support your argument, or those who support or defend Islam-

And then you say....
Quote:
You and the Moslems though, are welcome to waist your time trying to save this tumor.


And finally, (leaving aside more examples for the sake of space, for now)to answer your question......

Quote:
I say Islam is filth and garbage, and we need to get rid of it. I don’t aim to get rid of the Moslems. All I wish to promote is the falsity of Islam, and thereby help people realize Islam for the garbage it is, and hopefully slowly abandon it voluntarily. If they do, great. If they do not, I’ll just continue talking and writing. I would never take up arms against them, to either convert them by force or to exterminate them. Remember, these acts are the foundations of my arguments against Islam. Do you think I would resort to do the same thing I have been so highly critical of all this time?


No, not at this point, but other's might if they took you seriously and were of a more violent mindset.

And so I ask, where is the love....if you yourself would promote the falsity of Islam and simply let other's act on it....whether you wished them to or not.....See, if you believe in peace....you would be promoting co-existance, rather than the extermination of something....that a billion and a half people have incorperated unto themselves, and cannot be separated from, just as you cannot be separated from your athiesim.

Yet, you begrudge them for believing in "garbage", and that my friend is where you make your biggest mistake.

It's fine to begrudge the criminals that have turned it into "garbage" as you call it, and so will the vast majority of Muslims themselves, eventually cast out the "apostates" promoting jihad.....without you lifting a finger to type your thoughts about it.

That change has already started.

Deny this if you wish....it's just another observational analysis, and we all have a viewpoint based upon where we are standing at any given point in the realm of reality as we know it.

I once gave Blank a bit of flack for his repeated use of the word "Raghead", and whether he knows it or not, it is an insulting term to Hindus, Seeks, and a number of other folks that have nothing at all to do with Islam or Iran....simply because it is a reference (derogatory) to those that wear a certain type of head covering...

He got kind of bent out of shape and has since refused to have a discussion....that's his choice....maybe you both should lighten up, and quit generalizing and start projecting your honest anger on specific targets of merit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> Noteworthy Discussion Threads All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group