THE REASON THAT US WONT OPEN DISCUSSIONS WITH IRAN IS:?

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for appallingly ignorant men to remain in such a state.

Quote:

Australia Threatened by US State Terrorism
Dr. Gidion Polya

After a four-decade career as a scientist, I have almost finished researching and writing a huge book on global avoidable mortality. "State terrorism" has had massive complicity in global avoidable mortality (excess mortality) that now totals 1.3 billion since 1950.

...

The Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines "terror" as "intense fear" and "terrorism" as the "furtherance of views through coercive intimidation". "Terrorists" "intimidate" by causing "intense fear", typically by killing people. "Terrorists" fall into 3 categories, namely
(1) state terrorists (nations committing huge crimes against civilians e.g. the UK, US and Israel) ;
(2) non-state terrorists (e.g. jihadist terrorists and Iraqi and Palestinian insurgents); and
(3) state-sponsored non-state terrorists (e.g. the US-supported mujaheddin, Al Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan; US-support for Al Qaeda until the mid-1990s in the Balkans; US and UK covert terrorism including covert bombings, shootings and torture in Iraq; world-wide US support for particular non-state terrorists; US support for the mass murdering Indonesian military state terrorists who are evidently STILL involved in supporting anti-Christian militias and probably the terrorists involved in the Bali bombings, according to former president Abdurrahman Wahid).

"Jihadist" or "insurgent" "non-state terrorists" have killed about 5,000 Western civilians over the last 20 years (mostly on 9/11, according to the US Administration). However the US "state terrorist" response has so far been disproportionately associated with post-invasion avoidable (excess) mortality and under-5 infant mortality in the Occupied Iraqi and Afghan Territories that now total 2.1 million and 1.7 million, respectively.

Anglo-American-dominated mainstream media utterly IGNORE the huge reality of state terrorism, notably US state terrorism. Australia is under threat from ALL THREE types of terrorism, specifically
(1) US state terrorism (compounded by slavish Australia Government and Security association with US state terrorism, US media dominance in Australia and passive acceptance of direct US interference in Australian affairs, as in the 2004 election);
(2) jihadist non-state terrorism; and
(3) US state terrorism support for non-state terrorists (e.g. former president Abdurrahman Wahid recently expertly suggested that the US-backed Indonesian military may have been involved in the Bali bombing atrocities).

There is an appalling record of US state terrorism over the last half century and of US support for non-state terrorism in Africa (e.g. in civil wars), Asia (e.g. mujaheddin and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, US Al Qaeda support in the Balkans into the mid-1990s; US covert terrorism in Iraq) and Latin America (e.g. the US School of Americas trained 60,000 Latin American military and police personnel including torturers, dictators, death squads, state terrorists and non-state terrorists; US terrorist squads bombed churches in Ecuador; horrendous death squads, Contra rebels and other terrorism in Latin America).

http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/know/read.php?itemid=4006

0 Replies

Nimh, now you are preaching to the choir. Did I, in anyway, attempt to defend Saudi Arabia? Do you think for one fleeting moment I detest their practices less? Did I at any point, here or elsewhere, deny that they are worse than Iran in terms of mistreating women?

Friedman probably could have made his point as honestly and eloquently as you did for him. He didn't. Do you think he did? Do you think his average reader is astute enough to make the distinctions you did? Or, do you think he purposely chose to exaggerate well beyond the point of outright lying, knowing full well that well informed people who share his politics would forgive him, while ignorant folks would swallow his lies to the same or even better effect? Do you think that is honest journalism?

I think you've read enough from me to know damn well I am not satisfied with the status quo in Saudi Arabia. My purpose here was not to defend them from his characterization in any way shape or form, nor did I. I pointed out that he is outright lying when he says things like, "The brand of Islam practiced by Country A respects women". No political point, position, nor ideology justifies such a blatant perversion of the awful truth. That Saudi Arabia is a worse violator most certainly should be common knowledge, and to the extent that he's trying to put that word out I applaud him. However; pretending that another heinous violator is innocent is completely unnecessary to make the point. He does the entire movement for Women's rights a horrendous disservice with such Bull Sh!t and he deserves to be publicly scorned for it. The weight of the message would double, or triple if he had the decency (or was compelled) to make a public apology and clarify the truth of the heinous treatment of women in Iran as well as Saudi Arabia.

As eloquent and compelling as your defense may be, it is no less a tu quoque argument for it. Iran's crimes are not diminished by the fact that Saudi Arabia's are worse. Friedman (not Krugman) should be ashamed of himself. I encourage you to read the other thread where I attacked his shameful lies and I think you will see that nothing I wrote is in opposition to anything you wrote save I am not willing to turn the blind eye to one tragedy to highlight another. It fascinates me that you, of all people, will forgive Friedman for his idiotic simplification to black/white-good/evil even while condemning the Bush administration for doing the same (and I thank you for not quite painting me with the same brush).

You referred to the Iranian Women's Movement and its attempt to collect 1,000,000 signatures on a petition: You do realize it is an attempt to abolish hideously discriminatory treatment by the courts? Did you see the story about the 17 year old girl condemned for killing a man while trying to defend herself and her niece from 3 rapists?

No, it's not Saudi Arabia but it is a friggin horror show nonetheless. Until such time Friedman corrects his disgusting lies, he continues to earn my disdain. He should apologize immediately, write a story about the petition, and the need for it, and draw attention to Iranian heroes like Maryam Rajavi and the National Council of Resistance of Iran. Friedman would increase his stature and level of integrity if he had the courage to correct his dishonesty. Do you think he will?

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for appallingly ignorant men to remain in such a state.

Tough to disagree with this sentiment when it's posted by a delusional conspiracy buff posting an outrageous distortion of the truth from a site that specializes in such. For once, you've actually done a good job of substantiating a point. Well done.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

JTT wrote:
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for appallingly ignorant men to remain in such a state.
Tough to disagree with this sentiment when it's posted by a delusional conspiracy buff posting an outrageous distortion of the truth from a site that specializes in such. For once, you've actually done a good job of substantiating a point. Well done.

So typical of you, O' Bill. You're every bit as delusional as your bloviating Fox counterpart.

How have you determined that this site specializes in distortion? Is it simply that you don't like the facts?

0 Replies

The question remains: why are we content to have Saudi Arabia as an ally but not Iran?

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I think you've read enough from me to know damn well I am not satisfied with the status quo in Saudi Arabia.

I know that, but FreeDuck asks the relevant question here. Friedman's point was, quite obviously I thought: Why are we demonising Iran as some kind of singular country of evil that we can, therefore, not possibly be in dialogue or negotiate with -- when it isn't, to many of the criteria proposed (including yours on womens rights), any worse than some of the countries we are not just in dialogue with, but actually consider our allies?

To shorten this question: are you in favour of military action against Saudi Arabia? Are you in favour of isolating Saudi-Arabia and rejecting all and any dialogue and negotiation with them until they improve their ways on human rights and funding/encouraging extremism/terrorism? No? Then why the double standard re Iran?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Or, in my beloved historical comparisons, it would be an enormus mistake to think that today's Iran is Stalin rather than Andropov, Franco 1937 rather than Franco 1967, Saddam rather than Mubarak. A mistake that easily could cost many lives, if the US admin acts from such a black/white, good/evil perspective.

I'll also correct myself on this - however bad Iran's human rights abuses are, it is actually still a far cry from Andropov's Soviet Union or even Franco's Spain. Horthy's Hungary would have been more apt a comparison. So I actually was too harsh on Iran here still.

Which makes the US attitude to Iran exclusively all the stranger. It is an authoritarian state that is increasingly clamping down with rather scattershot violence on the measures of freedom it had introduced in the previous ten years. But it's no worse than most other countries in the Middle East. So why is it singled out as the one country that we cant possibly negotiate with?

0 Replies

It is unfortunate that Bush thinks that we are somehow doing a country a favor when we talk or negotiate with them. I think we should be talking to Iran and Syria. Regarding the latter, the Russian minister just chided us for not talking to Syria.

It is a difficult time to work with Iran inasmuch we are in a bad position. We are losing in Iraq and Iran is in ascendency relative to its power in the ME and nuclear development.

0 Replies

It is interesting that Bush has his panties in a bunch over alleged Iranian support of insurgents in Iraq. Afterall, we supported the Afghan rebels big-time in their war against the USSR. Should that have given the USSR a good excuse to attack us?

0 Replies

I don't understand how we could expect anything less. If Russia invaded Mexico, and a civil war followed, we would absolutely see it a matter of our own national security to ensure that the violence did not spill across to our borders, and we would absolutely be involved in the fighting one war or another. We took it upon ourselves to overthrow Saddam and occupy Iraq, for better or for worse, but at some point we will have to leave. Iraq, however, will remain in the neighborhood it is in now. It is juvenile and almost insane to expect them not to engage their neighbors in their reconstruction, or to expect their neighbors not to take an interest in the outcome of Iraq.

0 Replies

FD, are you saying the USSR's invasion of Afghan. was tantamount to an invasion by them of Mexico? I don't understand.

0 Replies

No. I'm saying it was to be expected that Iran would become involved in trying to affect the outcome in Iraq, because they are their neighbors and have been invaded and occupied but I foreign force from the other side of the globe. I'm saying, what would we do in their place?

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

The question remains: why are we content to have Saudi Arabia as an ally but not Iran?

I'm not content.

Nimh, I see you're just going to go ahead and duck my liar accusation to Friedman, while continuing to defend him. Welcome to his guilt.

nimh wrote:

I know that, but FreeDuck asks the relevant question here. Friedman's point was, quite obviously I thought: Why are we demonising Iran as some kind of singular country of evil that we can, therefore, not possibly be in dialogue or negotiate with -- when it isn't, to many of the criteria proposed (including yours on womens rights), any worse than some of the countries we are not just in dialogue with, but actually consider our allies?

How many times need I reiterate, that I wasn't arguing so much against his Friedman's point, but rather his damaging lies? POINT-> VALID LIES-> DAMAGING. Which part of this distinction is hard to understand?

nimh wrote:

To shorten this question: are you in favour of military action against Saudi Arabia? Are you in favour of isolating Saudi-Arabia and rejecting all and any dialogue and negotiation with them until they improve their ways on human rights and funding/encouraging extremism/terrorism? No? Then why the double standard re Iran?

Absolutely, positively, unequivocally YES. I am 100% in favor of offering a list of demands for human rights violators that they either take steps to correct in short order, or face all manner of sanctions including, but not limited to ZERO trade with the United States of America. Absolutely, positively, unequivocally YES; I am 100% in favor of using Military Action against every proud violator of human rights until such time as they cease to exist, or we do. I continue to believe that appropriate sanctions, followed by decisive action would alter the behavior of the worst tyrants that be in relatively short order. I further believe that the vast resistance to offering assistance increases the persistence of our enemies. They seem to know they can outlast our stomach for the fight. What do you suppose would happen if they knew they couldn't? It is precisely the waffling of the world that emboldened Saddam to behave as he did. A world united against tyranny wouldn't be laughed off by tyrants. Pity that is not the world we live in.

Your defense of Iran, Nimh, is taking on a dishonest flavor. In your desire to dissuade war with Iran, you're low-lighting the fact that they're once again on a slide for the worse. Meanwhile you simply ignore the FACT that the IAEA referred them to the Security Council precisely because they are out of compliance with their Nuclear Development. You further pretend that Ahmadinejad's calls for the destruction or Israel don't warrant attention. The Supreme A-hole called for the destruction of Israel through his puppet, while ignoring the world body's desire to insure he isn't developing the means to do just that. Sorry, that can't be glossed over by mentioning the brave resistance and pointing out another regime treats women worse.

What is so difficult to comprehend about holding in disdain a country who's leader; openly denies the holocaust, while publicly calling for another one (as well as the destruction of America), and is in all likelihood developing the weapons to do just that? Can you, like Friedman, not make your anti-war points without ignoring relevant considerations? It doesn't take a scholar of your caliber to recognize Iran as a worse threat to regional security than most countries in the ME. Why do you pretend otherwise?

Advocate wrote:

It is interesting that Bush has his panties in a bunch over alleged Iranian support of insurgents in Iraq. Afterall, we supported the Afghan rebels big-time in their war against the USSR. Should that have given the USSR a good excuse to attack us?

It was a Casus Belli then and it is a Casus Belli now. That the U.S. and the Soviets had the good sense to not attack each other directly (since that would be M.A.D.) shouldn't be used to misconstrue this.

FreeDuck wrote:

No. I'm saying it was to be expected that Iran would become involved in trying to affect the outcome in Iraq, because they are their neighbors and have been invaded and occupied but I foreign force from the other side of the globe. I'm saying, what would we do in their place?

We don't demand that they are not involved, Freeduck. We demand that they don't assist the violence. The Iranian PMOI is welcomed by the U.S. and 2.8 Million Iraqis reportedly signed a petition in support of them.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
The question remains: why are we content to have Saudi Arabia as an ally but not Iran?
I'm not content.

So what do you suggest?

Quote:

nimh wrote:
I know that, but FreeDuck asks the relevant question here. Friedman's point was, quite obviously I thought: Why are we demonising Iran as some kind of singular country of evil that we can, therefore, not possibly be in dialogue or negotiate with -- when it isn't, to many of the criteria proposed (including yours on womens rights), any worse than some of the countries we are not just in dialogue with, but actually consider our allies?
How many times need I reiterate, that I wasn't arguing so much against his Friedman's point, but rather his damaging lies? POINT-> VALID LIES-> DAMAGING. Which part of this distinction is hard to understand?

Then it's just a distraction. I suppose the lies are damaging if they keep someone from seeing a valid point.

Quote:

We don't demand that they are not involved, Freeduck. We demand that they don't assist the violence.

Then maybe it's a good idea to open discussions with them? To find out if they are assisting in the violence and if so why and if it is a valid reason perhaps there are ways of getting the desired outcome without using violence? Communication is generally a good thing.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
The question remains: why are we content to have Saudi Arabia as an ally but not Iran?
I'm not content.

So what do you suggest?

Warnings->Sanctions->Isolation->Regime Change...
Meanwhile, renewable fuel infrastructure development, increased use of Nuclear Power, Tax incentives for power conservation, offset by Tax penalties for waste.

FreeDuck wrote:

Quote:
nimh wrote:
I know that, but FreeDuck asks the relevant question here. Friedman's point was, quite obviously I thought: Why are we demonising Iran as some kind of singular country of evil that we can, therefore, not possibly be in dialogue or negotiate with -- when it isn't, to many of the criteria proposed (including yours on womens rights), any worse than some of the countries we are not just in dialogue with, but actually consider our allies?
How many times need I reiterate, that I wasn't arguing so much against his Friedman's point, but rather his damaging lies? POINT-> VALID LIES-> DAMAGING. Which part of this distinction is hard to understand?

Then it's just a distraction. I suppose the lies are damaging if they keep someone from seeing a valid point.

Really? Denial of human rights abuses is just a distraction if it's used to forward an ulterior point? Screw Iranian women because he's trying to demonize Saudi Arabia? Surely you see the folly in that viewpoint. It is this disgusting apathy for the plight of the Iranian women that set this tangent off.

0 Replies

I don't think that's what set this tangent off.

0 Replies

"The reason?"

Well, the Bush Administration is afraid of being deceived or is frightened by peace.

Negotiations are just battles without guns and if one thinks he would be outgunned one rather enters that breach without cheer. The Bushes are xenophobes who look darkly upon the darker races believing them to be untrustworthy and ragged beggars likely to break promises. In a lump, unChristian heathens to the core (except for the Saudis, they're our buddies Very Happy

).

No agreement signed by such people would be honored by them, so why even try to talk?

Another impediment towards peace would be its result on the economy. After all, America only can be the Arsenal of Democracy if there is a threat to it, and George Bush would certainly take this country to war if he thought money could be made from it.

In a nut, incompetent greedheads willing to wage war rather than negotiate for peace.

Anyone who complains about "negotiations" needs to remember that was a determining factor in how the Cold War was won without a single nuclear-tipped missile being launched.

If "negotiations" with an enemy with tens of thosands of nuclear bombs was good enough for John F. Kennedy it should be good enough for George W. Bush when facing an Iran who still has none.

But then again, George W. Bush is no John F. Kennedy, much to the misfortune of the rest of us.

0 Replies

That was a matter of FACT, not opinion. The tangent began Here. What a silly thing to argue against. What is so difficult about admitting the truth of Friedman's lies for you people? Why do you duck it at all costs?

0 Replies

Quote:

If "negotiations" with an enemy with tens of thosands of nuclear bombs was good enough for John F. Kennedy it should be good enough for George W. Bush when facing an Iran who still has none.

Amen to that

Quote:

But then again, George W. Bush is no John F. Kennedy, much to the misfortune of the rest of us.

Double Amen to that

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

THE REASON THAT US WONT OPEN DISCUSSIONS WITH IRAN IS:?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know