Ever in a desperate state trying to drum up stories that have Iran and nuclear weapons in them, the Associated Press has today run a story declaring:
The “rare public call” in question, incredibly enough, is that the Associated Press on Monday “obtained a copy of a book” written by this relatively obscure cleric some six years ago. The book did not sell particularly well.
The cleric, Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi, is considered incredibly radical in Iran, who has preached open revolt against the Islamic Republic in the past.
In addition to what the AP perceived as a reference to nuclear weapons, Mesbah-Yazdi has declared himself to be in favor of slavery, in opposition to giving trials to people accused of crimes, and in opposition to the idea of having elections at all, though he has often campaigned publicly for his favorite candidates.
The actual cleric in charge of Iran’s government, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has issued a fatwa in direct opposition to nuclear weapons, and has repeatedly said that such weapons are forbidden in Islam.
Apparently this was already mentioned by Oliver Roy in his The Politics Of Chaos in the Middle East (2008).
One has not read that book but it looks mildly interesting:
"Olivier Roy argues that the unintended and unforeseen consequences of the 'war on terror' have artificially conflated conflicts in the Middle East such that they appear to be the expression of a widespread 'Muslim anger' against the West. In this new book he seeks to restore the individual logic and dynamics of each of these conflicts, the better to understand the widespread political discontent that sustains them. Instead of two opposed sides, an 'us' and a 'them', he warns that the West faces an array of 'reverse alliances': in Pakistan the West backs General Musharraf, whose military intelligence services support the Taliban; in Iraq the United States shores up a government that has close links to its arch-enemy, Iran; the Iraqi Kurds, allies of the Americans, give sanctuary to an adversary (the PKK) of a fellow NATO member, Turkey; while the Saudis support the Iraqi Sunnis who are fighting Coalition forces.If these issues were not enough to contend with, the Shia-Sunni divide has emerged as one of the leading strategic factors in the Middle East. But the 'war on terror' is not merely the geopolitical blunder of a lunatic neo-conservative fringe in Washington; it is also deeply rooted in Western perceptions of the Middle East. Chief among these is the belief that Islam, rather than politics, is the overarching factor in all such conflicts, which in turn explains the West's support for either would be secular democrats or more or less benign dictators. Roy concludes by arguing that the West has no alternative but to engage in a dialogue with the political forces that count, namely the Islamo-nationalists of Hamas
and the Muslim Brotherhood…."
What is interesting that perhaps Roy does not know is that such "reverse alliances" were already common in the Middle East long before Christianity and Islam–indeed, they are well known during the era of Xenophon and Thucydides, for just one example.
What has not occurred to moderns is that this–for many reasons well known and not well known– may be the "norm" psychologically and politically between "states", and is seemingly suspended only under extraordimary conditions, perhaps initially by one "side" only, as in a "Crusade".
But even then–is there ever a Dandolo who cynically and realistically sees through the lunacy of Innocent?
The more interesting book would be, at the moment, that of an erudite Middle Eastern scholar and intellectual scalpeling his or her way through the political lunatics and religious fanatics of the West, especially the US, with the finesse of a Roy.
When one recalls the Reverends Hagee and Parsley and their roles in the campaign of Senator McCain Iran begins to look relatively mild-mannered and sane by comparison, does is not?
One awaits the Associated Press' discovery of the pertinent texts on that question–surely in vain.
Round and round it goes–"You must attack Iran, you must attack Iran"–a very tiresome refrain indeed.
walk down any street in the good ole us of a and ask any random person what should be done about the middle east and more likely than not you will get a response of
"nuke them of the face of the earth"
And when I ask "Why?" I usually get something like 'Because, you can't fix 1,000s of years of them killing each other. The only way it will end is if they're all dead.'
Obviously teaching critical thinking or history isn't a priority in American schools. 🙂
yes, Iran has a dick cheney too….
The day after the aid ship was attacked, I read an 'article' on the AP claiming that the aid workers on board not only were 'terrorists,' but active Al-Quaeda members as well. I'd provide a link if I could, but the next morning when I went to reread the article, it was gone.
I understand how an individual must be a really, really terrible person to use terms like 'the Jew-owned media" – if not an outright Nazi – but what other reason do these supposed 'news' agencies for their endless lying and manipulations? And always in favour of this one group?
God Bless America.
Part 1
This is the age of ruthlessness, inhumanity, corruption, indoctrination, exploiting the gullible poor, profiteering, warmongering, bribery, buying the elected officials, making others pay for your dirty works and much more….
MSM is bought by lunatics who believe in power, wealth, gross superstitions, hegemony and deceiving the public.
Studying the Iranian topic reveals the above assertions.
For example MSM always pairs Iran with North Korea portraying them as the worst rogue nations that are “threaten the world by nuclear weapons” but as once Zbigniew Brezisinsky said. “North Korea has the bomb, threatens to use it, is building more, Iran doesn’t have the bomb, says has no intention of building it, is a member of NPT..etc”
Thanks to David Frum who invented the “axis of evil” notion to brand Iraq, Iran and N.Korea. G.W.Bush said it in his SoU speech.
Frum still is repeatedly spreading lies about the “evil” nature of the Iranian regime.
Part 2
Also, MSM always repeats the lie of “Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map”. In an antiwar.com post in 2007 called “Rumor of Centruy:” it was proven that no Iranian has said such a thing. No doubt that false allegation (was) is intended to brainwash Americans and fill their heart with hating Iran and Iranians.( http://www.antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid… )
Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister said “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” MSM repeatedly uses that Nazi technique to prepare Americans for wars and other criminal political acts.
Now a new investigative report reveals the biggest Geobellsian Lie of MSM in this century.
This lie was so big it fooled nearly everyone including Noam Chomsky the co-author of the Manufacturing Consent. Read the report about that amazing ”big lie” here http://iran2009presidentialelection.blogspot.com/
"This lie was so big it fooled nearly everyone including Noam Chomsky the co-author of the Manufacturing Consent. Read the report about that amazing ”big lie” here' http://911studies.com
Part 3
The neocons who own MSM are now beating the drums of another heinous war by spreading more vicious lies on Iran. This morning I read an Editorial by James Fly and Bill Kristol here http://weeklystandard.com/articles/period-consequ…
They are claiming the side effects of war with Iran is minimal (limited).
Pay attention to this paragraph:
“ …Yet if we carried out a targeted campaign against Iran’s nuclear facilities, against sites used to train and equip militants killing American soldiers, and against certain targeted terror-supporting and nuclear-enabling regime elements, the effects are just as likely to be limited..”.
“….train and equip militants killing American soldiers…” This is a dirty provocative consequential lie, alluring and readying Americans for another devastating heinous war.
Who are these heartless, remorseless, shameless blood-thirsty, indoctrinated people who were instrumental in starting the Iraq war…who never apologized for their efforts for instigating that tragic war
Part 4 (last)
Now they are in earnest after another big war…Philip Giraldi implies eventually they are going to drag US to that war too.
Yesterday Stephen Kinzer in a speech in New American Foundation talked about the ideas behind his new book titled “Reset”. He referred to a novel about a small town where everyone knew a bully is going to murder his enemy (probably an innocent individual)….everyone knew but no one did anything…people were watching how the events are developing….until the bully committed the crime…” He likened war with Iran to the above story. He implied one of the motivations for writing his newest book is he doesn’t want to stay silent until US and Israel start that war…..he doesn’t want to stay silent and inactive until that a grand transgression actualized.
Hat off to him and so many here in antiwar.com
Watch one and half hour long video of Kinzer's talk here
No surprise here. AP believes that America was "founded on the principle of trust" in government. [See http://wire.antiwar.com/2010/06/07/ap-essay-govt-… and http://www.nolanchart.com/article7771.html%5D
AP repeats Big Lies AP-like on almost every topic not US domestic. It's now known as All Propaganda.
Iran needs to arm itself with nuclear devices pronto and must announce this intention squarely and publicly. Otherwise US & Israel will wipe it off the map, its that simple.
eye-yi-yi…. Can't we all get along…???
Using AP's scientific standards we can confidently state that Israel plans to drive the Palestinians off the West Bank and into Jordan with a rolling artillery barrage, as a number of Israeli military figures have advocated it.
won't work