The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Spinning us to war in Iran > Comments

Spinning us to war in Iran : Comments

By Antony Loewenstein, published 15/3/2006

We are being spun a lie on Iran by Western media.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
"We live in an environment where Muslims are portrayed as backward, looking for Western assistance and irrationally violent.”

They are not just portrayed that way; they are that way, and they are receiving active assistance from the likes of Lowenstein and the West-hating maniac, John Pilger whom Lowenstein cites as a defender of Iran.
Posted by Leigh, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 10:04:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spin v Counter spin!
Posted by anti-green, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 10:07:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a sad article, it reflects the reality of the world situation, rather than the spin we receive from all sides of the duopoly's of religious, political and media powers, hell bent on maintaining their dictatorships.

Considering we now live in a growing dictatorship, fueled by economic and religious greed for power, we can expect nothing less that the situation we have regarding Iran. I believe that if Iran and other countries were left alone to follow their paths, we wouldn't have the drive towards religion fundamentalism in these countries.

Sadly we are watching the technological might of christian culture hell bent on destroying any opposing god faction other countries have. Whats even worse is that they are doing it with total lies, knowing that these places can't defend themselves.

I have friends in Sweden and they are trying very hard to become non-reliant on oil and nuclear, their plans are exceptional in their approach to alternative energy sources. The biggest problem the Swedes face is their lack of resources and land mass to utilise new non polluting technologies.

In Australia we have the land, technology and resources to be able to become completely non-reliant on fossil fuels. But it won't happen, as the aim is total control by right wing evangelists in the form of sociological and economic power. Which they have obtained by stripping us of our ability to have a say in our future. Its all downhill from here, no turning back, as we have passed the point of no return.
Posted by The alchemist, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 10:18:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No one has told Iran that they may not have nuclear power. But with nuclear power comes responsibility to the world at large (even without discussing waste issues!!)

The problem here is that Iran is refusing to agree to the conditions of, and even sign/ratify the UN Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Whereas the world would have little objection to signatory countries like Australia generating power through nuclear reactors, countries that refuse inspections are rightfully castigated.

If Iran chooses to generate electricity from nuclear reactors that's their right, provided that the same levels of transparency as Australia's Lucas Heights (which could make plutonium or enriched uranium for bombs)is required to give to international inspectors.

Just because Korea, Isreal, South Africa, India, and Pakistan have disregarded the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty should not give open-slather to everyone else.
Posted by Narcissist, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 12:31:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antony's faith in the importance of a declaration that a Swedish committee will make fossil fuels unnecessary in that country (in 15 years) is a testimony to his tendentious naivety.

He also has faith in the words of "deputy head of Russia’s foreign intelligence" agency (known as the SVR). Since when are we supposed to believe opinions of the new permutation of the KGB?

This faith heralds in his misconceptions over Iran's words and deeds. While Antony can be confident that Iran's leadership subscribes to his own values, anti Western, anti Zionism and pro Palestine, he has to understand that the potential that Iran will hold the world's No.1 oil region hostage is a legitimate concern.

The relatively young, good-looking, President of Iran has no claims to greater honesty than any American politician. Why should he and the Ayatollahs have a nuclear button? It is no defence to claim "every country is entitled to the Bomb".

An Iranian nuclear "footprint" covering the Middle East could destabilize the world oil industry and drive petrol prices through the roof.

When petrol costs $2.50 a litre because Iran is flexing its cuddly muscles in the Middle East I hope Antony's Swedish mates have come up with something.
Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 2:29:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"They are not just portrayed that way; they are that way, and they are receiving active assistance from the likes of Lowenstein..."

Leigh,

religious extremism (including the Islamic sort) angers me more than anything, but I must have missed the pro-Islamist part of Lowenstein's article.

Your blanket opposition to Lowenstein's call for transparency and peaceful solutions makes you seem - by definition - to be irrational and violent yourself.

Please try to be more coherent and constructive, before people start declaring all *Australians* to be irrational and violent...
Posted by Dewi, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 4:48:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Go for it, Antony and Alchemist, wish there was a lot more of you.
One is really begining to wonder what is really happening to our world,, with the US having changed so much in nature since those heady days of the Marshall Plan, even though we had Stalin knocking at America's doorstep.

It seems galoots like Cheney and Rumsfeld just don't give a sh#t for a peaceful answer to the problem, revelling in what is going on even now in Iraq, believing that big power will always solve the problem, as the US believed in Vietnam and eventually had to pull out in disgrace.

No doubt the mad pair could knock off Iran, but will we ever recover from it, not in our generation's time anyhow?

George C, WA - Bushbred
Posted by bushbred, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 6:57:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author can't really be a writer can he? I don't think I've ever read such nonsense on this site, well no, that would be unfair to Irfan's articles.

Iran is nothing short of the major threat facing the world today. Forget China, they may have disgusting human rights, but they do care about their kids. Iran, as with all fanatical Muslim regimes, sole aim is to destroy Israel.

We've seen that even the Palestinian negotiators don't care about their people, shown in the disgusting corruption rates (a recent UN study showed that 1/3 of all corruption occurs in the Arab world! Not that it's a shock)and that it's more about saving face with other Arab leaders. Arafat was offered a state, with East Jerusalem as it's capital, but rejected it.

Surely a tactician would have thought, well, it's a start, we'll go on from there.

We've seen how the Palestinians in Jordan, Lebanon, & Syria, are held in refugee camps - not allowed out to work, can't buy land, and are only educated thanks to the generous west. Palestine is an issue only in the sense of saving face.

Arabs historically were very power driven, with a strong sense of authority, and enjoyment at humiliating the "other". This is why they built their mosque on top of the Temple Mount in the first place, and as a non-religious anglo, I believe a good start to the peace proccess would be for Muslims to say, "look, a thousand years back we conquered you and built a mosque on your holiest site just to spite you, we should demolish it".

Has the writer heard comments made by the Iranian thug-in-chief?

Or is he a Mossad agent?

This article is honestly not even worth the effort to respond, so I'll leave it at that then.
Posted by Benjamin, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 7:16:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh, before I forget, I am not a Mossad agent, Zionist, or whatever.

However, I do subscribe to the punishment for Islamic terrorists of amputating their arms & legs - so they are just a torso, then experimenting on them with female hormones, selling them to a Taliban who bashes them, so they know what it's like.

Then, after that, brainwashing them into becoming a radical zionist to the point where they are willing to die for the cause!
Posted by Benjamin, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 7:17:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The U.S. - Too cowardly to take on North Korea who turned back inpsections before Iraq was even invaded, too aggrssive to sit backl and think.

One can only hope that China or some other emerging power hurries up its act before the world implodes to the pure evil of the United States of America.
Posted by savoir68, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 8:42:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So Iran's all peace and lovely light eh? With a president who is as deranged as Kim Jong il no wonder we don't want them to get nukes. Islamophobia politically correct? How about objectively correct? With a religion that tells in no uncertain terms that infidels are to convert or die, that it is their 'duty' to impose their 12th century culture upon the world, that tells us it's the greatest honor to blow yourself up on a bus full of children, that tells us women are unclean morons that should never be allowed out of the kitchen, we're supposed to sit back and shrug, 'thats what they do'? The author seems to avoid an unpalatable truth - some cultures are superior to others, sometimes vastly so. At least the author realises that 'we live in an age of spin' - he's becoming quite the master
Posted by Gitmo Guy, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 9:51:52 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Look lets get this straight once and for all, Australia is its own country, an independent country, we won't be dragged off to war 10's of thousands of miles away on a whim. Unless our Commander in Chief says to go, right George?
Posted by SHONGA, Thursday, 16 March 2006 7:48:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Benjamin says: Iran is "the major threat facing the world today", then contradicts himself with: Its "sole aim is to destroy Israel".
Benjamin says: Arabs, including (especially?) "Palestinian negotiators", are corrupt.
Benjamin says: "Arafat was offered a state...but rejected it."
Benjamin says: "Arabs" are "power driven" and enjoy "humiliating the 'other'. "
Benjamin says: "Oh, before I forget, I am not a...Zionist."
Judge Judy says: "Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining."
Posted by Strewth, Thursday, 16 March 2006 8:56:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Benjamin wrote, "Iran is nothing short of the major threat facing the world today."

Assuming Iran does build a couple of nuclear bombs and fire them at Israel, that is not exactly threatening the world. Besides, rendering Israel radioactive makes it uninhabitable by Palestinians as well as by Jews.

Hardly a winning move.

Is it worth attacking Iran to counter this real or imagined threat?The US doesn't have a spare army large enough to occupy the country and neither do we. If we have trouble keeping the peace among 26 million Iraqis, how would we manage among 70 million Iranians?

The best we could manage is probably air strikes on suspected nuclear sites. These might or might not set back Iran's ambitions, whatever they really are, for a while. It would certainly cause the Iranian government to become extremely cross.

The strait of Hormuz is at the mouth of the Persian Gulf between Iran and Oman. At its narrowest it provides two shipping channels, each a mile wide. Through the Strait passes 40% of the world's oil supply. An angry Iranian government could easily retaliate by, amongst other things, closing the Strait to shipping.

Are the Washington chickenhawks really insane enough to provoke Iran? If they do, is the Australian government insane enough to join in? We can only wait and see.
Posted by MikeM, Thursday, 16 March 2006 9:35:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Apropos of the international arguments over and above iran and persian muslims is this amazing bit of tv that may not be online very long, not sure so if interested better watch ASAP. u need sound too. The woman in the debate is Wafa Sultan, an Arab-American psychologist apparently. This shows how the world doesn't need balls to protect freedom of speech, it just needs guts.

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=null
Posted by Ro, Thursday, 16 March 2006 3:34:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Will some of you aver learn that it is Western intrusion into the Middle East that has been the cause of the trouble you are so on about it. Since WW1, it has been the quest for the rotten black stuff, most of the time - made more problematic by America helping the Jews regain again their so-called Promised Land, now with nuclear rockets at the ready, backed by Pax Americana to assure them of completing their alotted destiny.

Surveying such a historical picture, should it not it be understandable that Iran, who up till now has never attacked another ME country, would want to somehow match that nest of atomic rockets?

It seems some of you guys need to get historically real, or rather to develop a sense of fair play.
Posted by bushbred, Thursday, 16 March 2006 4:56:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dr Sultan, featured in the Al Jazeera TV clip to which Ro has posted a link just above, was featured in an International Herald Tribune (from NYTimes) article on Monday, at http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/13/america/web.0313sultan.php. I think I previously posted the link. To reprise:

QUOTE
In the interview, which has been viewed on the Internet more than a million times and has reached the e-mail of hundreds of thousands around the world, Dr. Sultan bitterly criticized the Muslim clerics, holy warriors and political leaders who she believes have distorted the teachings of Muhammad and the Koran for 14 centuries.

She said the world's Muslims, whom she compares unfavorably with the Jews, have descended into a vortex of self-pity and violence.

Dr. Sultan said the world was not witnessing a clash of religions or cultures, but a battle between modernity and barbarism, a battle that the forces of violent, reactionary Islam are destined to lose.

In response, clerics throughout the Muslim world have condemned her, and her telephone answering machine has filled with dark threats. But Islamic reformers have praised her for saying out loud, in Arabic and on the most widely seen television network in the Arab world, what few Muslims dare to say even in private...
END QUOTE

Islam is potentially as capable of modern interpretations as Christianity became following the Reformation.
Posted by MikeM, Thursday, 16 March 2006 6:09:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Eh, MikeM, Islam does not need to copy what we former barbarians have achieved. Just learn a few lessons from the rotten things us former barbos have really done, knocked off six million mostly innocent Jews, for example, as well as before that God knows how many indigines in the name of Christ and God. So maybe if the Islamics started way back when they gave the message to St Thomas Aquinas how to get Chrisianity out of the dark poo, let
s hope they look at their history books, think of the better times, Chuck out the Mullahs. take a lessom from the Golden Age of Greece. as they did before AD 1100, and - Bob's your Uncle - it may make a far more honest world condition than we are chasing after now.
Posted by bushbred, Thursday, 16 March 2006 7:19:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
STREWTH

Iran isn't the world's most major threat? Let me guess, is it the USA? Are you one of those people who really believe the world would be better if the US wasn't the dominant power?

Good grief. If so, you musn't know that without US influence, Syria would have never left Lebanon - which they raped for decades (strange that Muslims never complain about that one isn't it?), Taiwan would be enslaved by China, as would Japan (you surely know the history there?) and tiny little Australia would be attacked from the north by our "Asian friends".

The ignorance of leftists never ceases to amaze me. It is the west who are evil yet it is the west everybody flocks to, illegally if need be.

MIKE.M

Do you not see how an attack on Israel would be bad for the world? Honestly?

I'll explain it. If Israel is attacked, they will attack back, likely with their own nuclear missiles, which would likely mean the end of Iran.

Muslims, I believe, WOULD take that as initiation for a HOLY WAR, as the world would be in real chaos if a nuclear war erupted in the region. Nations like China would see it as their chance to go all out on Taiwan (as the US would be busy, oh, and if you doubt that speak to experts on strategic policy, it's not my paranoid analysis)
and the world would likely degenerate into utter chaos.

Muslims, being brainwashed for the last, well no, forever really, by their wicked leaders would be a big problem as armies friendly to the US would pour into Israel to "wipe it off the map" for attacking Iran.

I encourage you to read all my post if you believe the REAL enemy is the USA, who, are the ONLY reason the world hasn't degenerated into this scenario already.

Do you really not see the vital role the US plays with regard to the barbarian cultures who make up 90% of our planet?
Posted by Benjamin, Friday, 17 March 2006 12:29:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Benjamin- the reason that a mosque is built on the Temple Mount is because that is where Muslims believe Muhhumad acended to heaven. Not to offend you. Part of the drama with Jeruslam is that it is an area holy to three different religions.

Now, I do think that Iran's president has been saying some mighty inflammatory and damn stupid things lately, but really, as far as nuclear ambitions go, they are not really a threat. They have had, for years, inspections by the IAEA. UNLIKE the USA. UNLIKE India. UNLIKE Pakistan. Their program has been much more open and accountable. The US and Aust and Israel and the EU would be damn stupid to keep threatening so that Iran feels its only defense is to make sure it DOES acquire weapons, a la North Korea.
Posted by Laurie, Friday, 17 March 2006 1:30:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Benjamin: The world's greatest threat? Global warming. Imperial hubris, whatever the variety - US, Israeli or Chinese. "Without US influence Syria would have never left Lebanon"? With US influence Israel will never leave the Occupied Palestinian Territories or the Golan Heights. Syria's rape of Lebanon? If you want to see "rape", check out Palestine: the bulk of the indigenous population driven from their lands and homes, their cities, towns and villages either destroyed or stolen, the remainder caged and occupied. And, re your lurid vision of Japan enslaved by China - "you surely know your history there" - it was actually the other way around in the 30's and 40's.
Posted by Strewth, Friday, 17 March 2006 1:34:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The media would not lie to us, just ask Leigh, there are WMD's in Iraq, and if the media and Johnny Bonsai say's so they are also in Iran, right Leigh!
Posted by SHONGA, Friday, 17 March 2006 3:51:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Benjamin has attributed to me opinions that I do not hold.

Of course an Iranian attack on Israel would be bad for the the world, as would attack on any one country that maintains the rule of law by any other country. (As an illustration of the principle, Sudan does not maintain the rule of law in Darfur, so attack by a coalition of countries could be justifiable. Israel's military incursions into Palestine, especially its jailbreak the other day, are becoming marginal. However, oddly, the US is not planning to attack either one.)

Benjamin hyperventilates, "If Israel is attacked, they will attack back, likely with their own nuclear missiles, which would likely mean the end of Iran."

Rubbish.

The attack with nuclear bombs by the United States on Japan in 1945 was not the end of Japan. Iran occupies 1.6 million square km, more than four times the area of Japan. Israel on the other hand is only 20,000 sq km, not much more than a hundredth the size. The number of atomic bombs you'd need to flatten Israel would only make a small dent in Iran's land mass.

Attack by Israel would not be the end of Iran, but it would cause the Iranians to become decidedly angry.

Is the REAL enemy the United States, as Benjamin claims for some reason that I think?

What an idiotic idea.

Just because, since the Spanish-American War in 1898 the US has (if we exclude WWI, WWII and a plethora of opportunistic African warlords) attacked more countries than the rest of the world combined doesn't make it the enemy.

I don't complain when Australian police invade crooks' homes more often than crooks invade police stations.

So if America has become the world's sheriff and JHo has become Asia-Pacific deputy-dog, why should I think anything's wrong with that?

Smooth flow of discussion in this forum is clearly not impeded by correspondents allowing facts to get in the way of their own opinions.
Posted by MikeM, Friday, 17 March 2006 7:06:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm not convinced President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is as deranged or dangerous as made out to be by western media. He certainly talks in inflammatory language but that in itself does not mean he intends to "wipe Israel of the face of the earth". I see it more as a populist ploy for support from conservative members of his government and Iranian citizens. He's domestic policies have generally been aimed at helping the poor and underpriviledged and he is a well educated man married to a wife who is a professor. For example, there was a recent report on Channel 4 news in the UK which showed that Ahmadinejad has allowed methadone clinics to be established for the countries heroin addicts (the largest heroin addicted population in the world) where before these addicts would have been executed. So I think one has to be careful about swallowing western media caricatures.

But if we are to say that he is a threat I cannot comprehend how military action would improve the situation. The US's legitimacy is completely undermined at the moment as a result of Iraq and they will not be able to gain support for military action from western nations. Further, such action will only create a more hostile environment in the middle east.

I'm not sure what the answer is but I am getting pretty tired of lazy dialogue of good vs evil. The problem is complex and needs a more nuanced response than is being touted at the moment.
Posted by Gabby, Friday, 17 March 2006 11:44:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Michael and Benjamin

Yes the U.S. has, in 20th world history terms, done deeds for many, no thanks to their current government in office.

However, they must also be judged on the 21st century, of which we have endured over 5 years. The return to government of the Bush administration itself is evidence of corruption somewhere or another.
Posted by savoir68, Saturday, 18 March 2006 8:08:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gabby

I thank you for an excellent balanced post.

I too tire of the simplistic 'good v evil' style of debate that continues to curdle these forums.

I found you commentary regarding President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad very informative and will endeavour to keep an open mind.

Cheers
Posted by Scout, Saturday, 18 March 2006 8:33:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lets get it clear about Israel and terrorism. In Jan 1948, a Jewish terrorist group drove a truck loaded with explosives into the centre of the Palestinian city of Jaffa, killing 26 and wounding 100. The same group kidnapped, flogged and murdered British soldiers. They bombed the King David Hotel in July 1946, in which 41 Arabs, 28 British, and 22 others died. Jewish terrorists killed 127 British soldiers and wounded 331 from 1944 to 1948, as well as thousands of Arabs. They also assassinated the British Colonial Secretary, in Cairo in November 1944, and the Swedish UN envoy in Jerusalem in September 1984, both for advocating a just solution for the Palestinians.

Between November 1947 and May 1948, Israel terrorised and drove out tens of thousands of Palestinians who lived in the Jewish partitioned area and demolished over 500 Palestinian villages. Then on April 9, 1948, Jewish paramilitaries launched a surprise attack upon the quiet Palestinian village of Deir Yassin just outside Jerusalem. The Palestinian men and boys were herded into trucks, taken to the local quarry, lined up and shot. Another group went from house to house shooting old men, women and children.

You might be interested to know that Israel has legitimised torture, refuses to obey any UN resolution. Maintains the rules of the Geneva convention don't apply to it and has countless accusations against it from all human rights bodies, as they continue to invade and destroy Palestinian homes, people and infrastructure.

Sadly the right wing religious are quick to denounce those that are defending their homelands against their ilk, yet fail to see beyond their fantasies, and behold the true reality of all monotheistics despotic expressions.
Posted by The alchemist, Saturday, 18 March 2006 11:51:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Onya Gabby and alchemist

Gabby - I agree that Iranian President Ahmadinejad defies the easy characterisation of "evil dictator".

The problem is that even if there's a 40% chance that Iran will have nuclear weapons within 5 years is that too high a risk for his declared enemies (the West including Australia) who are desperatly dependent on Middle Eastern oil? What if he believes enough of his own propaganda?

alchemist - your summary of Israel's terrorist sins is well put together and a fitting reminder that "Righteous" countries (and leaders) often hide dark beginnings.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Saturday, 18 March 2006 2:12:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The whole Israel - Arab conflict can be boiled down to a simple statement;
My God can kick your God's arse. The Jews did this! The Arabs did that! Sins of the fathers forever lasting while while ignorant fools on either side expound their justifications while thumping a barbaric bronze age text. Those people will only know peace when they rid themselves of this disease from our primeval past. So they will fight over a liberal Jew who got himself crucified 2000 years ago, the original colonial troublemaker! Eat His flesh. Drink His blood. Welcome to the modern age of science.
Posted by Gitmo Guy, Saturday, 18 March 2006 8:09:44 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Gitmo

I fail to see the point of your last post.

Ours is too short a time on this battered planet to blunt the sword of clarity.

Yours

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Saturday, 18 March 2006 9:56:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Can't see the point? It's a religious war. Get it? Or perhaps you and your fellow googlers missed that in your revisionist histories. As to life being short, it's the longest thing you will ever have, leftist hearbreak notwithstanding. We have a separation of church and state. They do not and the results speak for themselves. In fact, every trouble spot in the world seem to have that little problem.
Posted by Gitmo Guy, Sunday, 19 March 2006 6:40:45 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Because our arguments are about even, keep it up you Posters from both sides. Should be a wish you all well from the Online Management. Remember also what even Winston Churchill once said - "Jaw Jaw is much better than WAR WAR!"

George C, WA - Bushbred
Posted by bushbred, Sunday, 19 March 2006 11:23:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You have to be a little cynical about the the yanks though.For 12 mths we have no American ambassador in Australia.Condaleezza Rice was only able to find the Australia with geiger counter since the Yanks have finally realised that they have to wean themselves off oil and go nuclear.

Then they have the audacity to dictate to us whom we can sell our uranium to.Perhaps Zimbabwe should find some uranium and then the US will rid them of the Mugabe butcher.

So George Dubwuya finally sends over one of secret society of the order of Skull and Crossbones to be their ambassador to Aust.Only the super intelligent or super rich may join,the only problem being is that when someone tells a joke,George has to get the cue from Condeleezza on when to laugh.So no jokes will be told while Condeleezza is away.
Posted by Arjay, Sunday, 19 March 2006 4:55:02 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pete , your right, its just sad for the world that those beginnings normaly end up as violent endings as well.

Theres a strong rumour that the organisation called the “skull and bones”, is an affiliate of the great white brotherhood, also known throughout history as the Knights Templar. A very violent religious organisation which uses many groups to work through and who've used whatever means available to achieve their aim, of monotheistic world economic and cultural domination.

The rumour goes, that you find them in the top jobs in Government, politics, multinational and monopoly businesses. As well as at the head of many religious organisations, businesses and charities. Of course there is also the Australian equivalents which many politicians, beaurucrats, heads of business and church leaders are also members of. Its not hard to guess who those groups are.

Bush bred, “jaw jaw” is all we have to retain our sanity, why is it that “war war”, always wins in the first instance. What other reason can there be for the USA to be discriminating against those countries that hold the life blood of their war machine. Won't follow orders, nor give up their economic and cultural heritage, to fatten a few religiously controlled companies. Well thats the rumour, the boys and girls under the bar, told last Friday at 10.30pm, so keep it under your hat, we don't want to start more rumours.
Posted by The alchemist, Sunday, 19 March 2006 8:42:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
More about Condy

Kerry versus Condy

Re' the discussion between Condoleeza Rice and Kerry O'Brien the other night on the ABC, it was interesting to notice Condy's split second change of face under questioning. From the point of view of a historian and writer there became fixed in the mind, the picture of a person who though able to put on a front good enough for an academy award, the lady reacted strangely when asked two particular questions - one about a coming US attack on Iran, and the other about China's huge projected military buildup? With both suggestions or queries, her colouring turned almost ashen for that split second, though possibly hardly enough to be noticed by the average observer.

In some ways we might say that for Condy to feel tension like that could be an omen for the future, and a hope, in a way, that dangerous sounding threats by the United States as published in a recent 'West Australian" newspaper, might be all just so much talk or spin.

Anyhow, let's hope so, partly for America's sake alone.

George C, WA - Bushbred
Posted by bushbred, Monday, 20 March 2006 12:51:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just to update a post from Narcissist. Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Posted by David Latimer, Monday, 20 March 2006 11:36:34 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
only a couple of days to go...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Oil_Bourse
Posted by its not easy being, Monday, 20 March 2006 2:46:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have the solution.We make Bill Cliton the ambassador to Australia and have Moanica Lewdinski as his secretary,then George Dubwuya can look for weapons of mass seduction down at Kings Cross.

The anwser has been there all the time.There is no need for Condeleeza to invade Australia looking for the new "black gold" uranium.

George could simply use our new radiating condoms that glow in the dark,and simply make love,not war.

Now did I spell all the names correctly?
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 20 March 2006 6:49:27 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry Gitmo Guy,

I don't agree.

It's not a religious war - it's a political and economic war that uses religion to legitimise itself.

I think you will find all wars are based on this premise.

Religion is the tool those in authority use to make people do things they wouldn't rationally do.

The original crusades were more about real estate and plunder than following God's Will. This war is no different.
Posted by wobbles, Tuesday, 21 March 2006 12:59:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Crusades a religious war, Gitmo Guy?

Thereby hangs a rather cute tale. From http://economist.com/diversions/displayStory.cfm?story_id=5543675 :

QUOTE
The most daring but successful prank in history was carried out by Doge Dandolo [of Venice] in 1203/4, when he first derailed, then hijacked, the Fourth Crusade, tricking the Crusaders into doing the exact opposite of what they were supposed to do. The crusade was supposed to conquer Egypt first, and then take back Jerusalem. Venice was contracted a year earlier to provide the ships to carry a sizeable army across the Mediterranean. When the crusaders arrived, their numbers were lower than anticipated, and they were unable to pay the agreed amount for the vast armada that had been assembled in Venice.

The aged Doge Dandolo, seeing an opportunity to hoodwink the crusaders, made a big show of "taking the cross" himself, and offered to forgive their debt if they would come with him on a short detour first. This was agreed, and together they first sailed to and sacked Zara, a Christian city that Venice had recently lost to Hungary, and then sailed on and sacked Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire-with Dandolo making sure that most of the crusaders never knew that Pope Innocent III was threatening them with excommunication if they did so.

There is a wonderful irony in the fact that a blind octogenarian not only managed to con the gullible crusaders out of recapturing Jerusalem for Christ, which was their primary goal, but also tricked them into sacking the main centre of Christianity in the east instead.
END QUOTE

You would be naive to believe that wars are driven primarily by religion.
Posted by MikeM, Tuesday, 21 March 2006 6:01:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It takes time to develop a historical perspective, but I think the second most daring and successful prank in history may have been Ahmad Chalabi's success in persuading Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of the Washington chickenhawks that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that, if they invaded Iraq, Iraqis would welcome them with flowers and candy.

As practical jokes go, I can't think of one that was ever like it.

As recently as last October, in http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,1121966,00.html it was being reported that:

QUOTE
... Chalabi will have potentially more significant meetings with National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and perhaps Condoleezza Rice, both of whom — according to high-ranking Administration officials — believe that he is a plausible and acceptable candidate to be the next Prime Minister of Iraq when that nation votes, yet again, for a new government on Dec. 15.

It is the latest signpost in the Bush Administration's hegira from lunatic idealism to utter desperation in Iraq...
END QUOTE

Somehow, although the Time article goes on to call Chalabi "a supremely oleaginous political thug", you gotta admire the guy for playing the most powerful country in world history for blundering idiots.
Posted by MikeM, Tuesday, 21 March 2006 6:22:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Although I think the yanks need be brought down a notch or two,the free world still needs them.

The more fundamentalists lunatics like Iran that get nuclear weapons,the more likely that they will pass thase weapons onto lunatic fringe dwellers who will use them regardless of the consequences.Religion and logic seem to be diametrically opposed and Israel has a lot to worry about.
Posted by Arjay, Tuesday, 21 March 2006 6:37:42 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"the occupation is the main source of the ongoing insurgency"

Much like the criminal justice system is the main source of ongoing crime.
Posted by Herbie Choo, Tuesday, 21 March 2006 9:46:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Herbie, I remember many decades ago living in a large city where parts of the criminal justice system seemed to me to be quite a significant source of ongoing crime.
Posted by Henery, Wednesday, 22 March 2006 1:02:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fair enough, you who say it's not a religious war, but remember religion gives them justifications to continue their eternal war that started between Judea and the Phillistines. Now if they got rid of their skyfairys maybe then they would be able to base their wars on logic and reason, giving them a chance at achieving peace that is impossible while they cling to superstitions.
Posted by Gitmo Guy, Wednesday, 22 March 2006 7:55:24 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As I see it, the thrust of this article is that while there is no evidence that Iran is attempting to construct nuclear weapons and much evidence to the contrary, a propaganda campaign is developing portraying Iran as a major threat to world peace in preparation to an attack on that country.

However, if Iran were to build nuclear arms, such a decision could be understood as purely defensive when the world's great (very nuclear) superpower displays such hostility and with the example of what happened to Iran's non-nuclear neighbour, Iraq. You only need to look at a map to see that Iran in surrounded by nuclear-armed countries - India and Pakistan to the east, Russia to the north, Israel to the west and the USA just over the border in Iraq (and with ICBMs that can reach anywhere in the world).

The point I am making is that Iran could be pushed into acquiring nuclear arms to defend itself. The USA is not threatening the third member of the so-called 'axis of evil', North Korea, simply because North Korea has nuclear weapons that could probably reach Japan.
Posted by Kephren, Wednesday, 22 March 2006 4:39:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Recent LateLine interview between Tony Jones and US Colonel Larry Wilkinson, so revealing, looks like America is heading for another Vietnam. Even a Nixon style impeachment for George W'.....?

Extract from Wilkinson to Tony Jones -

"......the lack of proper planning for the attack on Iraq, the lack of post-invasion thought was an ineptitude of the first order, and possibly the greatest ineptitude in the history of America........"

They also discussed how Dick Cheney holds more power than any other US Vice President before him. There was also the observation that the George W' regime has ceased to be republican, becoming ncreasingly more fascistic, no doubt giving hint of the abuse of the Separation of Powers, with the recent interference in the US judiciary.

In the end, if it is true that the present US Presidency is really heading for trouble, we could wonder what will happen to our little Johnny Howard, or has he become so adept despite all the increasing failings of Howard's seemingly Lord and Master, that our Johnny will get off Scot free, having proven that to have plenty of political knack is safer than a strong knowledge of political historical shortcomings.


Posted by bushbred, Wednesday, 22 March 2006 7:00:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kephren,there is a vast difference between North Korea and Iran.We can use logic and bargain with Nth Korea,but Iran is driven by religious fundamentalism,that has no logic that relates to the survival of us mere mortal beings.
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 25 March 2006 8:13:54 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Arjay, Zimbabwe has uranium, but not very much. As an anti-nuclear campaigner of 14 years, I would like to add a few points. Iran is a signatory to the NPT (in fact it signed before Australia did, as far as I know), and its nuclear facilities have been under IAEA inspection when it was required. The Iranian administration has complied with all requests for inspections. No evidence has been found to prove a nuclear weapons program. But this does not mean that Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons.
A former Australian intelligence officer told me he thought Iran's nuclear power program "probably was" a cover for a weapons program, but this is hardly the sort of evidence needed to justify a war (the Iraqi experience notwithstanding).
I read that there are a number of questions that inspections have raised about Iran's nuclear program, and that these questions should be answered. But, I repeat, this is not justification for war.
As I see it, if the US (and others) attack Iran, the only logical explanation is that the US wants to make sure that they get their 50 year war against radical Islam, because attacking Iran will convince any last wavering muslims that 'the west' wants to destroy muslim countries so as to get their resources for free, and is quite happy if Islam is destroyed along the way.
If Israel attacks Iran, it will be an attempt to stop Hammas from getting more money from Iran (after having said they will refuse money from Europe). It should be remembered here that Iraq used to supply a lot of money to the Palestinians. And threats of a nuclear response from Israel if Iran attacks it are to be taken seriously, although I think that will backfire very badly.
Posted by camo, Wednesday, 29 March 2006 6:35:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy