This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Blowback Works Both Ways

Tyler Durden's picture


Submitted by John Aziz of Azizonomics

Blowback Works Both Ways

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad knows how to inflame American and Israeli leaders.

He’s claimed 9/11 was an inside job:

Making reference to what he called the “mysterious September 11th incident” and the “slave masters and colonial powers” of the West, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad excoriated Western member nations in an address to the United Nations General Assembly in New York

Ahmadinejad said after the speech that as an engineer he’s sure the Twin Towers at the World Trade Center in New York were not brought down by jetliners.


Ahmadinejad, in an interview with The Associated Press, says it would have been impossible for two jetliners to bring down the towers simply by hitting them. He says some kind of planned explosion must have taken place.

(Amusingly, this sparked al-Qaeda to supposedly put out a counter-statement defiantly claiming responsibility and condemning Ahmadinejad, although such disputes have not prevented America from claiming that Iran and al-Qaeda were jointly responsible for 9/11).

He’s claimed that the holocaust may have never happened:

During an interview with CNN, which aired Monday on “Piers Morgan Tonight,”the Iranian president said he will not judge Nazi Germany’s extermination of the Jews during World War II.


“Whatever event has taken place throughout history, or hasn’t taken place, I cannot judge that. Why should I judge that? I say researchers and scholars must be free to conduct research and analysis about any historical event,” Ahmadinejad said.

And today, he claimed that Israel was a “nuclear armed fake regime”, and that Israel will be eliminated:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Monday Israel has no roots in the Middle East and would be “eliminated,” ignoring a U.N. warning to avoid incendiary rhetoric ahead of the annual General Assembly session.


Ahmadinejad also said he did not take seriously the threat that Israel could launch a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, denied sending arms to Syria, and alluded to Iran’s threats to the life of British author Salman Rushdie.

Ahmadinejad claims that Israel and America are bluffing in their threats to attack Iran:

In a series of combative interviews in New York on the eve of the UN General Assembly, Iran’s political leader said Israel was making a lot of ‘noise’ and encouraging the West to prevent legitimate scientific progress in his country.


Reiterating that he was open to dialogue with the United States on the nuclear issue he also said he was prepared to defend Iran from any external threat.


“Fundamentally, we do not take seriously threats of the Zionists,” he said. “We believe the Zionists see themselves at a dead end and they want to find an adventure to get out of this dead end. While we are fully ready to defend ourselves, we do not take these threats seriously.”

He may be right on that count, because America can ill afford another costly invasion, and nothing less than a full invasion and regime change is likely to in the long run prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon.Yet while I believe that an American or Israeli attack on Iran is an entirely foolish policy that will only serve to weaken America and Israel in the long run, it is foolish and dangerous for Ahmadinejad to needlessly enrage the ferocious neoconservative beast.

Ahmadinejad may well be playing the same long game as Osama bin Laden:

We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy.

Osama bin Laden

And they may succeed (although those who believe that war is a stimulus that can end a depression will surely disagree — as Antal Fekete has noted, Western governments may look to a new hot war in the middle east as an opportunity to exit an economic depression that they cannot control).  But for Ahmadinejad and Iran, it may come at a huge, huge cost — a long painful invasion, ending in death in the street or on the gallows. Neoconservatism — and Obama and Romney are both to lesser and greater degrees neoconservatives — is a violent utopian ideology that seeks to force the entire world — by whatever means and at any cost — to conform to American foreign policy imperatives. As America should have learned a long time ago — and as Ahmadinejad may well soon learn — needlessly pissing off violent utopian ideologues creates blowback.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:06 | 2827909 john39
john39's picture

"conform to american foreign policy"?  come now, that is not exactly accurate.... shouldn't it state "conform to zionist" control?

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:19 | 2827976 Cortez the Killer
Cortez the Killer's picture

It continues to surprise me that someone with a high powered sniper rifle hasnt taken out this ass faced monkey during one of his visits to the UN.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:24 | 2828000 MillionDollarBonus_
MillionDollarBonus_'s picture

I agree with the premise of this article. Blowback does work both ways. Libertarians, for example, have been poking the hornets' nests of governments for decades, and now they seem surprised that governments are finally retaliating by targeting potential libertarian domestic terrorists such as sovereign citizens, Ron Paul supporters and Oath Keepers. Libertarians can hardly claim innocence when they have been provoking the government for decades by spreading damaging conspiracy theories and smearing the reputations of respectable politicians. Payback's a bitch, and libertarians need to stop crying and accept that they had it coming from the start. 

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:38 | 2828062 Precious
Precious's picture

Another reason why the Globalists are doomed.  

All of the centralized mega-institutions they design to consolidate power are vulnerable to asymmetrical attack by distributed, loosely-tied, hostile networks.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 12:08 | 2828206 ParkAveFlasher
ParkAveFlasher's picture

+1.  Clearly, "Iran" is the "high speed rail" of foreign policy in American politics.  Thrown out there as a diversion every election cycle.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 12:27 | 2828281 mick68
mick68's picture

What has he to fear from a nation that doesn't even have the balls to attack Syria?  As if they're going to attack Iran when the commander in chief cowers at the thought of Syria. An easy deduction, unless your name is Obama, then you think sending your navy over countless times will convince him of your courage.

In the end, this guy is making an ass of the US and NATO simply by calling their bluff.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 15:01 | 2828966 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

Get back in your cage humonkey.

Animals aren't allowed to roam in human society.


Tue, 09/25/2012 - 23:10 | 2830817 jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

again with the monkey metaphor. not a pleasant antecedent: 


Tue, 09/25/2012 - 12:08 | 2828207 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

The West has pushed all their chips to the center of the table.  Ahmadinejad has responded by going all in.  Check to Israel.  Netanyahu is history in less than a month.  Show or fold.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 12:20 | 2828243 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

Precious, the Globalists are winning. At least as for now. The centralized mega-institutions' reach is global, with the exception of a very few negligible cases. The true clients of the Great Commercial Empire - the stock-market-listed MegaCorporations - have the whole world as their oyster.

What further "consolidation of power" do you really think that they want? This is a honest question. Btw, consolidation would hurt the weapons industries. They are already moaning that insurrections are not as profitable as full-blown wars (cold or hot).

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 13:24 | 2828280 Precious
Precious's picture

Wrong.  You believe they are winning.  They are clearly losing.  In fact, they cannot even beat a group like Al Quibler. Yet they continue to consolidate at every possible opportunity. They are lathered and layered with incompetence and ineffectiveness.  They cannot even find people to read their own thick manuals to carry out their own ridiculous plans.  It's everywhere.  Planning in the complete absense of execution.  A total inability to motivate their legions of workers except with the most inane, unappetizing rewards.  Every one of their beloved institutions is failing and under attack because of complete obsolescence. Give me any globalist mnemonic and I'll show you 1000 points of failure

People are so used to the media propaganda and the bullshit from the globalists that they cannot see that everthing these people influence, manage or own is completely, utterly falling into ruin. 

For-profit corporations are not globalists.  They may be many undesirable things, but they are not "globalists".  Their agenda is profit, not mass control of the citizendum.  Your example of for-profit corporations as globalists is off point. They are not political except if it is expedient.  For-profit corporations ordinarly do not care what size soda you drink or whether you read about Darwin in public school or whether you have 3 children or whether you own gold or whether you see a doctor or whether you own a gun or whether you drive a car or how much your toilet flushes or what kind of lightbulb you want ...

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 22:38 | 2830772 i-dog
i-dog's picture


"For-profit corporations are not globalists. They may be many undesirable things, but they are not "globalists". Their agenda is profit, not mass control of the citizendum."

Zing ... BULLSEYE!!!

Wed, 09/26/2012 - 03:02 | 2831018 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

I disagree with this article of faith of yours: "For-profit corporations are not globalists"

we are talking about globalists. this has something to do with the globe, remember? That's the world.

You are making a purely American political statement, mixing up what your domestic perception is with what happens elsewhere.

Ask Non-Americans what they think about the WTO and those dear multinationals that steer the global economy. Ask Latin Americans what they think about Monsanto, for example. Go and look what Coca Cola does.

Check how Mickey Mouse is still copyrighted throughout the globe.

If you talk about globalists, you have to start with world trade and go on from there.

Wed, 09/26/2012 - 07:12 | 2831168 i-dog
i-dog's picture

That is definitely the most childish piece of globalist disinfo I've ever seen you attempt, Ghordie!! Surely you can do better than this!

Your strawman ("something to do with the globe") is so weak that it falls over with nary the slightest breeze!!

Globalism is a political movement to centrally control the planet ... the multinationals are just hangers-on ... as you well know....

Wed, 09/26/2012 - 07:27 | 2831181 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

come on i-dog, this is becoming silly

the globally accepted definition of globalism/globalist is advancing/someone that advances globalization

the Webster dictionary goes on like this:

Definition of globalization 
noun the process by which businesses or other organizations develop international influence or start operating on an international scale

I was discussing the matter according to this definition. Should I be wrong on this assumption, they we were discussing two completely different things, including cup sizes in NY as above mentioned --- Note that Precious mentions:"what size soda you drink or whether you read about Darwin in public school or whether you have 3 children or whether you own gold or whether you see a doctor or whether you own a gun or whether you drive a car or how much your toilet flushes or what kind of lightbulb you want". I fail to see global matters in it, it looks to me mostly local.
Wed, 09/26/2012 - 07:52 | 2831223 i-dog
i-dog's picture

The term "globalist" refers to those on the international committees (including the WTO, which you referred to earlier) working towards a global single currency, global 'Agenda 21' development rules, global carbon taxing, global regulation and standardisation of food, drugs and more, and a global ZATO police force.

As 'Precious' pointed out, that has nothing at all to do with corporations seeking a profit through arbitrage between resource and labour markets on a global scale ... ie. "free enterprise and free trade".

I'm a director of a multinational with dozens of manufacturing and sales offices around the world, but we are no more "globalists" than the kid in Argentina who buys trinkets from China and sells them around the world over eBay. Indeed, even as we speak, I'm waiting to sign papers transferring our 'global headquarters' from one country to another ... in yet another arbitrage opportunity that has nothing at all to do with "globalisation".

You are confused.

Wed, 09/26/2012 - 07:55 | 2831233 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

see below, even the international Webster is confused about this US term that is used in a US-centric terminology nexus. as I accused you a few times, my English might not be the best but your thoughts have definitely an US-slant for me.

and as a director of a multinational, how do you react to local legislation that hampers your operations? with the cry of sovereignty-uber-alles?

and what is your position on taxes? what do you think of the multi-nationals tax dodges? what do you make of Apple/Foxxconn and their labour "techniques"?

I find it interesting that you are on board of a globalization-driver and that your biggest personal political enemy are globalists, to be frank... what is even the sense of one without the other?

Wed, 09/26/2012 - 08:06 | 2831269 i-dog
i-dog's picture

Your last paragraph shows that you either have no clue of the difference between politics and business (though, in a Venn diagram, they would overlap) or you're just being deliberately obtuse. I suspect the former (for a change).

"how do you react to local legislation that hampers your operations?"

LOL ... Why do you think we're changing our "domicile"? (Hint: I placed it in quotes because nothing will actually change operationally). Why do you think Microsoft moved a couple of people to Ireland? Negotiating with governments for quid-pro-quo deals is just as much a part of business as is negotiating with suppliers and customers for discounts or other tradeoffs. It has been that way for thousands of years, by the way.

You need to stop politiciking and read some books on business.

Wed, 09/26/2012 - 08:39 | 2831359 tip e. canoe
tip e. canoe's picture

i-dog, it's within that overlap that lies the crux of the problem.   of course, not all corps have the same overlap, which is why it's impossible to paint with such a wide brush on either side of the argument.

Wed, 09/26/2012 - 09:35 | 2831505 i-dog
i-dog's picture

I disagree that the overlap contains the crux of the "globalisation" problem. To repeat what Precious said: "For-profit corporations are not "globalists". Their agenda is profit, not mass control of the citizendum."

The overlap only occurs where business MUST get involved in government (through bribes and the necessity to obtain influence in government bureaucracies that can override the terms of business between a buyer and a seller). If business involvement in influencing government is a problem with local and national governments (which it is, but it is localised), then supranational governments just present an even greater potential for global oligarchy - and they have done so. It's the wrong direction for seeking solutions.

The true solution lies in reverting back to [much] smaller nation-state governments and the re-imposition of tariffs as the means to fund governments. This would reduce the natural arbitrage between different labour and resource markets. Then, Monsanto (to take just one of Ghordius' examples) would have to negotiate with each local community for the right to sell its seeds and possibly suffer prohibitive tariffs from those communities that were averse to GMO (a solution that is impossible under the global WTO). AAPL would be faced with large import tariffs bringing iCrap from China into the US (or, better still, Texas) market and would therefore be more inclined to manufacture and/or assemble locally to avoid tariffs.

The solutions lie in political philosophy at the local level; the problems lie in global one-size-fits-all directives from an expanding global politburo.

Wed, 09/26/2012 - 10:05 | 2831698 tip e. canoe
tip e. canoe's picture

i agree wholeheartedly with the solution you propose and am not arguing with that (nor is ghordius above, though i may be mistaken).  i just happen to choose to believe that from a corporate perspective, maximum profit is derived through maximum control, so control is a means to an end.  whereas with the "globalist" agenda (as you have defined it), maximum control is derived through maximum profit, so profit is a means to an end.  it's 2 sides of the same coin, just looking at the same problem from opposite perspectives. 

it's a similar disconnect that is happening between those who think "capitalism" (as they choose to define it) is the problem and those who think "government" is the problem (e.g. TP vs. Occupy).   the more we argue over which color hat the devil is wearing instead of accepting that it is multi-colored, the less collective energy we are able to muster to discover a solution that we can all agree upon.

this is all assuming that the energy variable remains constant which is a massive assumption as we know.

Wed, 09/26/2012 - 10:20 | 2831790 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

+1 not arguing with that, particularly with your multicolored devil. the problem might be that i-dog sports a pure white coat and to me he seems to be colour-blind, between his unnecessary insults and unfounded prejudices

Wed, 09/26/2012 - 11:17 | 2832090 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

"their agenda is profit, not mass control of the citizendum"

this is indeed one of the most puzzling parts of this, for me. I started the argument by saying "they are winning". by now, you know that I see the whole shebang as a commercial and military empire led by the US (a point of view that seems to be very painful to you and others).

then Precious brought those examples with cup sizes (a local NY matter), Darwinism in local schools (a US cultural war "thing"), the 3 kids thing (ditto or chinese?), whether you own gold (a strongly US matter). ok, fine, I see that my global/local barb was not of your liking

then you brought the beef. thanks, btw.:

global single currency (a BRIC demand based on a revolt against the dollarization of the world), the Agenda 21 (IMO a dream of a couple of bureaucrats), development rules (a broadly diverse lefty issue), global carbon taxing (a clearly international lefty thing), the WTO (that is nothing else that the neo-liberal-spawned enemy of those tariffs you were mentioning), global standardization of food, drugs and more (eh? food might be an EU "thing", otherwise it's the first time I hear that, usually those things are painfully national), and then the "global policemen" NATO (which, for us europeans, is nothing else that the continuation of our old imperial traditions - a point of view that is utterly painful for many US citizens to even contemplate - our old empires had their navies and fleets in order to "open markets" and "secure resources" - has something changed? Except for the existence of the State of Israel? Even that is nothing new, look up the Crusades and the Religious Orders like the Templars and the Maltese).

meanwhile I have checked in 7 languages, by the way. for me, it looks like the whole non-American-English speaking world makes no distinction between the "globalizationists" and the "globalists" (including for pure lack of this US-term "globalist" in this sense), and I realize that only very few (strictly Americans) people put all of the above beef in one basket and label it "the globalist agenda". For us-all-others, they are totally different agendas driven by totally different people and countries. But there is one nexus I've found: the US Democratic Party. Funny, eh?

and then comes this (purely US Republican+Libertarian vs Democratic?) point about the "mass control of the citizenship". On one side there is a lot of propaganda about FEMA camps to-be-used-for-concentration-of-rebels (for which I have sensed fears and read rumours of huge expenditures, including here) and on the other side, as we have discussed other times, there is this incredible existing and tangible prison population in the US, coupled with an arms industry that is selling like candies to people it scares to death. Now, again, I really fail to see where this is applicable outside of the US. Why should the "mass control of the US citizenship be on any global agenda? The more you write about, the more I find US national issues, not global ones.

to me, your critical attitude is admirable, but I have the impression that you lack a certain global/historic perspective when looking at the globe. you simply don't "see" the empire and perhaps this gives you an utterly distorted view. and you keep "projecting" your issues to others. Again, a US-centric view, IMHO.

Wed, 09/26/2012 - 12:03 | 2832340 i-dog
i-dog's picture

So many misinterpretations! I won't have time for a detailed reply until tomorrow evening CEST.

Thu, 09/27/2012 - 02:37 | 2834612 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

"The true solution lies in reverting back to [much] smaller nation-state governments and the re-imposition of tariffs as the means to fund governments. This would reduce the natural arbitrage between different labour and resource markets"

I heard that. No small task though! Who gets to draw the imaginary lines this time around; or do we need another WW to decide that one?

Thu, 09/27/2012 - 06:12 | 2834711 i-dog
i-dog's picture

Your puzzlement doesn't surprise me, Ghordius -- in light of your demonstrated inability (or unwillingness) to understand the business mindset (whether large corporation or small business).

Firstly, multinational corporations and inter-national arbitrage are nothing new. Early manifestations included booze traders operating out of southern Europe and bottling or transhipping through England to other parts of the empire ... sometimes bootlegging, sometimes paying bribes, sometimes paying tariffs - depending on the governmental styles and restrictions in place.

There is always a niche market for the entrepreneur ... even a multinational one! Modern communications simplify management and distributed manufacturing across national borders, but they have been a feature of business since before even the Templars and Venetians exemplified the principles.

Secondly, the drive for centralised control of world trade and finance (ie. "globalisation") has been a political one. The owners of innovative and well-run corporations can become multi-billionaires under ANY political regime ... ask the de'Medicis, Fuggers, Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Carnegies, Hearsts, Vanderbilts, Fords, Astors, Gettys, Hughes, Forbes, Gates, Agnellis, Mittals, Lis, Slims, Bransons, Arnaults...

If there is a government in the equation, then business must deal with it (usually to attempt to gain some benefit or avoid some penalty). The larger and more pervasive the government, the greater the potential benefit to be gained for a business. Global government brings global advantages to create global oligarchs. The politics come first ... the opportunities for misuse by businesses come later as a fully expected consequence.

The WTO, WHO, FAO, UNESCO, IMF, and other international organs of centralised control, were all instigated at the behest of globalist politicians in Europe and America after WWII. The most important instrument of globalisation has been the WTO, using the added muscle of the World Bank and IMF to influence policies of developing countries and which succeeded the multilateral GATT agreements dating back to 1947. The WTO is driven by "think tanks" and staffed by career bureacrats who have no allegiance to corporations or oligarchs.

The same applies to the FAO, which drafted the Codex Alimentarius back in 1961 (long before Falak Pena's buggyboos Ronnie and Maggie came on the scene) and which now decrees, as of 2012, that any country not compliant with ALL of its food and drug standardisation dictums will no longer have recourse to the WTO to settle ANY trade disputes. Corporations have absolutely nothing to do with these grabs for centralised "globalist" bureaucratic and political power. So you don't need to jump on the strawman of the simple examples that Precious gave ... because there are many more extreme examples to be found in the pages of global WTO agreements and the Codex Alimentarius that have global repercussions.

The exact same situation as the above for global trade also applies within your pet 'European Experiment" (which is in fact a microcosm, or test bed, for extension globally - having started with 5 states and now encompassing 27, on the way to 50 or more - it's just a thinly veiled replacement for the equally failed Soviet Union) ... where the ability of a nation state to impose differential tariffs to account for natural labour and resource arbitrage between undeveloped periphary countries and the developed core have been eliminated. This naturally encourages corporations to decentralise to the lowest cost state with the result that it either drives down wages in the home state (reducing 'standard of living') or eliminates jobs in the home state (increasing 'unemployment'). We can all see how that is working out!!

Again, the European Experiment was dreamed up in the minds of ambitious empire-building politicians wtih a political agenda, rather than in the board roooms of corporations. Churcill, Adenauer, Mitterand, Spaak and Spinelli had absolutely no allegiance to any multinational corporations - indeed, they were more antagonistic towards them than anything. I won't go into to whom they were in fact beholden....

Then we move on to 'Agenda 21' - which you dismiss as a "dream of a couple of bureacrats". Apart from the fact that it was adopted by all nations attending the 1992 UN Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, and published by the UN in 1993, as "an action agenda for the UN, other multilateral organizations, and individual governments around the world that can be executed at local, national, and global levels", there are very visible signs of strict adherence to its principles already manifesting throughout the developed world. All governments are complicit, with some corporations as winners and some as losers. Again, the "globalisation" is political.

Further, the issue of "global control of the citizenry" is not restricted to the US and FEMA camps. That is childish disinfo. As stated above, it encompasses world trade, world food, world health, world finance, world development and world resource usage. It's not quite here yet, but anyone with even half an eye open and a couple of functioning neurons can both read the plans (they've all been widely published for decades) and see the emerging manifestations of this political drive to global central planning throughout most of the world ... ie. "globalisation". And it's not driven by the US, though the US has been the prime vehicle through which the globalists have acted.

"I have the impression that you lack a certain global/historic perspective"

LOL ... I spit my coffee when I read this one!! I've spent decades as a highly paid consultant to the biggest multinationals, lived and/or worked in dozens of countries, communicate in half a dozen languages, owned my own multinational businesses, sit on the board of others, and live and breath internationalism. I've hardly ever lived in my birth place (which was not the US, btw), especially since I completed my first university degree. It is you who is lacking those qualities. So there!!! Take your trite condescension someplace else, Ghordie....

Thu, 09/27/2012 - 09:01 | 2835002 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

lol - it pays to "talk" to you, even when we are of different opinions

ok - first(ly), to get it out of our way, the aristocratic sneer you call "trite condenscension": I am at least as much an entrepreneur as you are, I've founded several companies and co-founded half a dozen others, and operated in several countries/continents. All this tempered by having been broke twice. In my youth I would have sneered down my nose at you as a "corporate mercenary". So I broadly agree with you on several points. Though I might point out that the Venetian Merchants were aware of operating within an empire (and funding it with their taxes and actions). Oh, and I have bribed, too, so I can't look down at you on this...

Secondly, I also agree though I find your bunch of examples worthy of singular consideration.

Regarding the "monsters", i.e. the WTO, WHO, FAO, UNESCO, IMF - those who belong to the UN have a different history than for example the IMF. You can't understand the IMF without the French involvement in it. Which has a financialist/imperialist background.

Nevertheless, I find your view interesting. No "oligarchs" and no corporate interests behind the WTO (and before GATT)? Perhaps no specific ones but collective (imperial) commercial/corporate interests? I have difficulties at thinking that the various left-leaning parties of this world have an interest in promoting the "free-trade". Tariff barriers against free trade were - in Europe - the domain of the Left, protecting Labour. Are you sure there are no ties between the neo-liberals of old and new and all this free-trade nexus? Remember that the discussion about that started in the British Empire when the US was still full-blown protectionist (for "budding" Industrialist's interests). Cui bono? Only bureucrats? In my experience they need instructions even to find their asses.

I will look up some of this, particularly the Code Alimentarius of 1961, of which I admit total ignorance. You seem to think that the Agenda 21 is important, so I'll look this up, too.

About your view on the European Project that I support with moderation and of which I had the chance of knowing many of his "fathers": I will there, too, rethink on some of my prejudices. Though I can tell that I, too, am broadly antagonistic against several of the Big Biz Multinationals - from my Small/Medium Biz perspective. Which carries more economic and political weight here. Perhaps I can find a few examples how a small/medium entrepreneur can literally hate the gargantuans you seem to think are - can I say it this way? - "mostly blameless". Whenever I meet others of my size in several countries, I find that our "political agenda" (mostly defensive) differs from that of Big Biz and from the Left (on both sides quite offensive).

FEMA camps: I'm still clueless, and you have not helped, there. Mindless tax-money-sucking provisioning or real plans?

On one point I still "differ vehemently": we don't have the same "globalists" here. One reason why the US word does not even exist (yet?) here. For some of the issues where you find one nexus in the US you'll find several here, plus the national divides. Perhaps I can find an easy example for that.

Meanwhile, have a good tax-residence transition. I still have nightmares from the last I had, they are still dogging me after 20+ years!

Thu, 09/27/2012 - 19:12 | 2837067 Precious
Precious's picture

More brilliance from the WHO, part of the Globalist club of self-appointed civilian molestors.

Thu, 09/27/2012 - 06:42 | 2834743 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

just as an addendum to the vocabulary used in this context: here Brandon Smith was using this "globalist" term. I asked for clarification and

Precious replied "Globalist?  Start your research with the Rockefellers and their Foundation and go from there.  It will lead you to everying nefarious, like the UN, and so on.  Is that too complicated?  The fucking UN is built on land donated by Rockefeller.  How much hand holding do you need?"

To this I have to answer: we in europe wanted to build up the League of Nations after the WWI. Yes, this was part of an American-European plan and part of the overt presidential agenda, but the very US did not join until WWII as the UN was born. Now the forces here behind the original concept were mostly from the left (including the Catholic Church, yes) but all in all quite diverse. The opponents of the plan were the european imperialists, particularly the French and the British ones - the same guys that were envisioning on papers the bombing of villages in the Middle East as a cheap way of holding colonies there.

To that the answer from Clashfan:

"Or examine the Freemasonic and Luciferian nature of Izrahole itself, even to the falsely labeled "star of David" on their flag, a hexagram, an occult symbol that never had anything to do with David.

 Rockefeller, Rothschild, occultism. Search that one."

These people are Illuminati Luciferians. Even reducing it to Izrahole or Judaism does not explain the full story."

Now, without taking sides or scoffing at any unfamiliar-to-me terms, in europe even Hitler had plans for a jewish state (the Nazis originally thought about Madagascar). But somehow this is all bunched together, for Clashfan: Freemasons, "Luciferians", Israel, occultism, and of course the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds. Again I question: is this not an American View? Fuelled by the Internet websites that propose those views? I don't see any equivalent elsewhere, except in pockets of the British Commonwealth. Though the Iranians are drawing from those views, too, as a fairly recent development.

The way I see it is that in the US there was a broad overt opposition to all "foreign meddling". They were nicknamed the Isolationists.

Meanwhile, in Europe we had a broad overt opposition to intra-european wars, spearheaded by the International Socialists, flanked by various Catholic and Lutheran movements and broadly agreed (with some skepticism) upon by our (Classical) Liberals. We called them the Internationalists.

Their bane were our Imperialists. Who, if you decompose them in their parts, were investors with interests in the colonies, banks funding corporations drawing resources from the empires, Nationalists (where it fitted), Militarists (including the military/aristocratic castes from which I descend) and so on, including the Anglican Church and others favouring an Imperial Commonwealth. And of course the Weapons Producers. All in plain view, regardless if you looked at the UK, France or even Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal or the Netherlands.

Now, if I look from this Internationalist vs Imperialist european conflict and look at the US, I find some strange distortions:

The "Internationalists" are called Globalists, as I just found out. The Imperialists? You don't talk about them. Nope, they don't exist, really. You have a military caste, huge military expenditures that would have made our Militarists of old green with envy, powerful interests in the weapons manifacturing industry, churches that propagate an American Exceptionalism and duty vs the flag that sends young people to the military. But they are not Imperial Interests in your eyes.

And a huge cultural fight between Conservatives (the right) and Progressives (the left) of a kind that is familiar to us (we have it too) but is way more bitter that here, way more bitter than Bismark's "Kulturkampf" with the Catholics.

And then you have the true Winners of the World Wars: the great stock-exchange traded Corporations that act as multi-nationals on the whole globe and have, thanks to the new markets, created great wealth through efficiency, return-on-scale, ingeniousness (for a while the US produced half of all engineers of the world) and old-fashioned imperialistic-colonialistic extraction/exploitation. All this aided by the former european Imperialists that thought "a shared pie is better than no pie".

Now, please, for someone that thinks that an Empire is not bad per se, it depends how you drive it, my view is that there is a powerful "rationalization" undercurrent in the US that makes those comments like "corporations are just for profit, all the baddies are the Globalists, who btw are occult fiends".

Hence my point that America Has A Blind Spot. And demons lurk in those shadows.

Wed, 09/26/2012 - 07:47 | 2831201 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

meanwhile I see that an US dictionary goes like this

Definition of globalist noun

  • a person who advocates the interpretation or planning of economic and foreign policy in relation to events and developments throughout the world.a person or organization advocating or practicing operations across national divisions.
seems I'm mistaken and we were indeed talking about different matters. I was not aware of this American term though I still fail to see how most of Precious' issues are truly global instead of US-specific ones Further, I doubt there is anything else than commercial interest driving all this political forces. Cui bono? I was saying that the MegaCorps drive globalization. I'd also say that the globalists (from an european, african and asian perspective a grossly misleading and conflating term) ride piggyback on globalization meanwhile I note I'm not the only one making this assumption. see here on the international version of the Webster
Definition of globalism noun

the operation or planning of economic and foreign policy on a global basis:millions have lost jobs to the new globalism

i-Dog, please note how the example is geared toward globalization

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 12:14 | 2828226 AurorusBorealus
AurorusBorealus's picture

I am no libertarian.  However, I find the policies of the United States government abhorrent: debasing the currency by printing money, stealing the wages of workers with an income tax all the while allowing goods and services from abroad to enter the country tax-free, creating an enormous underclass dependent upon the state for handouts (in order to capture a large block of voters), engaging in an endless series of aggressive wars, acting as interloper in every part of the world whether invited or not, promoting socialism, feminism, racism, and homosexuality in young people by recreating the curriculum of the public schools to emphasize nothing but race, class, and gender, creating innumerable secret police agencies, and on and on. I am an old-school conservative, ala Bismark, so what do you make of that?

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 12:21 | 2828246 ClassicalLib17
ClassicalLib17's picture

  I think someone is using MDB's computer when he is away.  Wife or life partner, perhaps?  This comment is totally out of character.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:25 | 2828007 Canadian Dirtlump
Canadian Dirtlump's picture

How dare he have the balls to tell the truth and stand up to an empire that is asshurt they got kicked out of iran 30 years ago and another regime which take the term rogue nuclear state to new heights.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:54 | 2828148 RSloane
RSloane's picture

Oh right, then his open firing on and killing his own citizens during their protest was what? ...just unfortunate?

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 12:53 | 2828409 Precious
Precious's picture

You make it sound like he pulled the trigger.  Could you be wrong, and was it instead calculated, planned and premeditated, as a false flag operation? 

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 13:00 | 2828429 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

which 'protest'? Which country?

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:32 | 2828034 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

it continues to surprise me that someone with an avatar named "killer" would believe such a "simple" solution

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:38 | 2828064 Cortez the Killer
Cortez the Killer's picture

Not as a solution, but for sport

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:57 | 2828163 Ima anal sphincter
Ima anal sphincter's picture

How many points will I get when I put YOUR head in my scope? I need to know before I squeeze the trigger.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 13:49 | 2828661 Cortez the Killer
Cortez the Killer's picture






Tue, 09/25/2012 - 13:57 | 2828689 akak
akak's picture

Cortez (the original) is my hero.

Very good man. Brought civilization to the savages.

I am glad to see you honor him here.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 14:20 | 2828790 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

...and the avocado to Europe. The Aztecs considered him a male Mother Theresa.  He is the poster child for Chiquita (and our attorney general).

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 13:49 | 2828132 Ima anal sphincter
Ima anal sphincter's picture

Just who is a greater threat right now, Ima-dinner-jacket or Nutty-yahoo? I'm inclined to say Nutty-boy, who is quite pissed off right now. I haven't verified this, but it "seems" the Israeli delegation walked off during Ima's speech. BUT, the US's DID NOT!!! Is this a clear message that we won't be joining in on the fun if Israel attacks? Ol-nutty-boy must be livid. Big daddy ain't going to be there to finish the fight that the skinny loud mouthed punk started. I'd SO MUCH enjoy watching the punk get it's ass kicked.

So much death at the hands of so few. There is something VERY wrong with this picture.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 14:26 | 2828810 Amagnonx
Amagnonx's picture

Which ass faced monkey?  Bush, Obama or Clinton?

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:21 | 2827984 Dalago
Dalago's picture

Email Antal Fekete and let him know that war is not profitable and it actually ruins nations and their people on both sides:

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:37 | 2828043 BLOTTO
BLOTTO's picture

The world puppet leaders are serving their puppet master(s) very well...with the strong help of the illuminati controlled MSM.

They own both sides.

How else do you control the outcome - unless you own both fuckin sides.

The end.

Now lets go vote. (obv sarc)

The creek is polluted WAYYYYY further up the stream...we need to cut the head off the beast - not its tail.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:06 | 2827910 not fat not stupid
not fat not stupid's picture

Iran is NOT Iraq. Only fools think it is. Ground invasion would meet huge well prepared ground forces.

Air war all the way and a willingness to inflict massive civilian casualties (not advocating but thats the only way to avoid huge US casualties.)

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:14 | 2827943 DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

+ 1

Correct.  No land war in Iran, no way.  Too many (US) casualties.

I do recognize that just about ANYTHING else is possible re the USA, Israel and Iran.  I sure do not know.  But, we will not be sending in GIs to that mountainous and heavily populated country, where everyone would likely shoot at our troops, and no way that is going to happen.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:18 | 2827972 GetZeeGold
GetZeeGold's picture




We sent a drone in there.....showed them.


Don't make us do it again.


Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:33 | 2828039 bonderøven-farm ass
bonderøven-farm ass's picture

Ground invasions are so passe''s all about 'joy-stick controlled, death-from-above' now; much more palatable when you're responsible from half the world away.  Live-feed, screen-shot destruction bitchezz.......!

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:57 | 2828162 Skateboarder
Skateboarder's picture

And you can stuff your dirty face fulla cheetos while you're doin it too! =) =) =)

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 12:41 | 2828354 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

Said the monkey who was actually able to surpass the Shrub's previous record unfavorable polling results in the neighborhood.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:13 | 2827950 KidHorn
KidHorn's picture

Once the bombs drop, they'll fold in 5 minutes like iraq and afghanistan.

I probably would too.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:21 | 2827985 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

Maybe, but we play a twisted game. See: Iraq / Afghan story. Must try to convince self (& others) that it's anything but oil. Don't think we have the political balls to drop it outright. This isn't 45. We have fewer friends, greater enemies, less resources, & poorer, skeptical, & angrier citizens.   

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 12:11 | 2828219 ParkAveFlasher
ParkAveFlasher's picture

Afghanistan has a habit of "folding", only to then unfold again.  Think I see a pattern there!

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 13:44 | 2828645 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

poppies do the same thing 

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:21 | 2827986 johnnylaw187
johnnylaw187's picture

Yes.  Iran is more than double in size and population.  General Shinseki told the truth that 300,000 troops would be needed for Iraq and was promptly dumped by the Neocon leadership.  I guess it's a possible solution for our youth unemployment problem.    

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:23 | 2827993 CPL
CPL's picture

Need fuel to do that.  

10 years ago there was enough energy on paper to roll into Iraq and build the mega complexes.  Finding a dwindling resource while your trade "partners" hold the oil card in the coutry you are determined to pick a fight with is asking for air support as well.  In the form of ICBM's.


China hardly has an expansionist policy anymore than Russia does now.  They have their own countries getting torn in half from drug/alcohol abuse and in China's case, too many men.  110 million of them that will never know a women other than their mother.  So what is the quickest resolution?  

A nice big war.  The US gets to scrape the barrel for bodies and Russia/China solves a big social problem. 


The trick is making sure nobody gets pissed enough to drop a nuke.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:40 | 2828075 optimator
optimator's picture

Israel had to start loading nukes on their Phantoms during the '73 war before the U.S. would resupply the Israeli military.  Today Israel has many more nukes and delivery means. 

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:28 | 2828022 Cole Younger
Cole Younger's picture

Give me a break..Iran's military is nothing compared to the U.S. It will be a 50:1 kill ratio..The U.S. will not be without loss of life but Iran's losses will be massively greater..Traditional military defenses cannot hide like insurgents. As soon as U.S. forces hit Iranian soil, the military will strip off there clothes and go under ground..No different than Iraq.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:36 | 2828055 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

yes...assuming no other nation speaks (acts) up. One fatal flaw in most empires, as they near the end, is assuming military superiority solves all problems.   

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:46 | 2828106's picture


No different than Iraq.


Where hundreds of thousands died over an American lie.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 14:16 | 2828753 johnnylaw187
johnnylaw187's picture

"No different than Iraq."


And that turned out really well.  Welcome to the United States of Amnesia...Iran doesn't have to "win" on the battlefield to send us home with our tail between our legs:


In 1975, Army Col. Harry Summers went to Hanoi as chief of the U.S. delegation's negotiation team for the four-party military talks that followed the collapse of the South Vietnamese government. While there, he spent some time chatting with his North Vietnamese counterpart, Col. Tu, an old soldier who had fought against the United States and lived to tell his tale. With a tinge of bitterness about the war's outcome, Summers told Tu, "You know, you never defeated us on the battlefield." Tu replied, in a phrase that perfectly captured the American misunderstanding of the Vietnam War, "That may be so, but it is also irrelevant."

Mission Accomplished.


Tue, 09/25/2012 - 17:48 | 2829846 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture


Tue, 09/25/2012 - 14:23 | 2828791 CPL
CPL's picture

Let's hope there is something to be done at a table then.

Losing anyone's life over a resource we all know will not provide the needed energy to sustain 7.2 billion people over the next ten years is insane.  This is a problem that will solve itself with the expected declines in oil stock production, specifically sweet light crude.  When sweet light crude goes so do the highly tuned and engineered machines we are comfortable with that require a certain grade of oil without seizing up from a lack of horsepower from the low quality of the mined and fracked energy.


Make no mistake with sweet light crude, it is very important, people are willing enough to killing millions and millions just to operate for a couple more years.  A war in iteself requires more energy tha anyone can afford.  There are sensible people that understand enough that as the oil wells reach empty after 120 years of pumping.  This isn't the opportunity to have a revolution or a war, this is the opportunity to start developing trade routes again engineering the system to use 1/2000th the amount of eneryg we use today.  


Or at least researching and dissecting hisotry to learn from ancestral routes.  If we start producing Oil from bitumen mines, I'm afraid there won't be anything to pave the roads with.  Tar is the primary ingredient.  In fact for those noting in their cities that most road work projects are so fast and undelayed the cities themselves are going whole hogs.  I've never seen a roadworks project under a week to pave until the last three years, usually it's 15 guys picking their ass watching one guy do something.  This summer though.  Everything and the kitchen sink is being thrown at it.


The whip of costs will eventually drive all of the countries into the Steam age again.  Then the old laws of civic planning starts up again.  Everything from waterworks to sewage is being picked apart at this very moment to see how any of these systems can be run with a tiny fraction of the energy actually required.  So far it's turned into boil advisories in every city in every western nation because of the energy required to deliver water and keep it mixing in with still water.


If the governments of the world wish to remain operating anything, right now they'll be looking at building old frameworks to deliver services.  At a minimum maintain standards of some kind.  Although with the financial mess, many will not listen or care what the message is however this plays out int he end.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:45 | 2828092 mktsrmanipulated
mktsrmanipulated's picture

Look at history...WWII we broke Japanese society and German society that was the last time we were able to really put a democratic government in place..since all the liberals and tree hugers place collateral damages as the for front of war....the only way to break a radical society is to inflict as much emotional pain as can be inflicted....a man watches his chidlren and wife lose their his lifetime of accumulation be destroyed....and believes he cannot win no matter what and watch the man be defeated...Break the society and you can rebuild it....CONSEQUENCES TO YOUR ACTIONS  

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 21:02 | 2830506 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

willingness to inflict massive civilian casualties ...


An excuse to impose democidal martial law in the USA too!

This is set up to be a two-for-one deal for the global elites, BOTH genocidal foreign wars, and democidal martial law.

The way to understand ALL of these things is by following the money to the SOURCE. Natural resources are controlled through the money system. Those who control the money system control the physical world. That control is based on organized lies, operating organized robbery. The bigger picture is that the international banksters are consolidating their global hegemony over the money system, by wiping out any resistance, and making an example out of those who resisted.

Iran is definitely a whirlwind of blowback. However, there are NO "good guys." There are only different groups of organized criminals, operating their own preferred systems of organized lies and robbery. The banksters are attempting to consolidate their global dominance, which is symbolized by their ability to make money out of nothing, which everyone else is forced to accept.

Thus, the world is a struggle between different kinds of "bad guys," with the worst ones being those who have the most money and power today.  Iran is being targeted by a gang of trillionaire mass murders, and that gang of trillionaire mass murders effectively control the governments of all the NATO countries.

This is all runaway INSANITY!!! Different groups promote their preferred kinds of bullshit. However, they are ALL just promoting different kinds of bullshit. This whirlwind of blowback can been as Neolithic Civilization, spreading around the whole world, then returning to destroy itself in its original birth place.

Thus, the wars on Iraq and Iran are part of the whole history of Neolithic Civilization's social pryamid system, based on lies and violence, operating fraud and robbery, spreading out to conquer the whole world, and then returning to where it originally started, to finally destroy itself, due to its own triumphant madness!!!

Wed, 09/26/2012 - 08:26 | 2831320 tip e. canoe
tip e. canoe's picture

preach it brother

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:07 | 2827917 Cash2Riches
Cash2Riches's picture

Wow this guy is making a lot of bold statements! He is making sure he gets talked about today.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:09 | 2827927 LULZBank
LULZBank's picture

He should use Youtube videos for inflamation.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:12 | 2827928 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

War is not the stimulus it once was for the US.....

Conventional wars are hyper consumptive... How many modern MBTs do you think you can make? Compare that with Shermans from WWII and how many people would be required....

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:41 | 2827929 Mercury
Mercury's picture

And they may succeed (although those who believe that war is a stimulus that can end a depression will surely disagree — as Antal Fekete has noted, Western governments may look to a new hot war in the middle east as an opportunity to exit an economic depression that they cannot control).


War can only be a broad-based stimulus if you win.

The US gave up on winning wars in the 1950s when it became politically unfashionable.

Since then smaller, private interests have built business models around losing wars which, although potentially very profitable for a few interested parties, are not broadly stimulative.

The neo-cons may have tried to break out of this system in 2002 but eventually they proved unsuccessful as Afghanistan and Iraq now show.  I seriously doubt that Obama hopes for the USA to win any present or future war in the traditional sense of the term.

Surely the US had the wherewithal to turn the better part of Iraq into a parking lot, rename it “New Texas” and suck its oil dry. That probably would have been a stimulus for the American economy. I’m not saying this is what should have happened but throughout human history this is exactly the kind of thing that did happen following a war with a clear victor still able enough to take advantage of the spoils.


I expect much handwringing to follow the first demonstration that the Chinese still understand this.


Tue, 09/25/2012 - 21:25 | 2830575 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

Nobody will win any real, total wars, anymore. For more than ten thousand years, it was possible to win wars, by being more dishonest and violent than anybody else, and therefore, control the world through your frauds and robberies. I.e., it was possible to "win." However, the sublime paradox of final failure from too much "success" is now near. The weapons are billions and trillions of times more powerful. All our "leaders" are INSANE, because history has selected them, because they were the best at being dishonest and violent, and therefore, able to "win."  They are NOT adapted to their weapons becoming orders of magnitude too powerful to use!  Rather, their ability to lie to everyone has enabled them to lie to themselves all too well. Thus, they can imagine continuing to do more and more of the same things that they always did before, which always worked out well enough, for them, in the past.

Militarism is the supreme ideology, which should adapt to postmodernizing science providing weapons that are billions and trillions of times more powerful. Especially the cutting edge of nanotechnology, automated bioweapons could be described as being quadrillions of times more powerful than anything that ever existed before.

However, the Neolithic social pyramid system has become way, way too psychotic to understand any of that. Instead, we are going to have to go through utterly insane and irrational world war, which nobody is going to win, and which will probably result in the survivors envying those who did not survive. MAYBE, in the longer term, somebody will survive through all that, and adapt more sanely to technologies that are many orders of magnitude more powerful than anything that ever existed before in known human history ???

However, for now, the biggest bullies' bullshit, on ALL sides of various conflicts, will cause ALL of them to collectively destroy themselves, and almost everybody else too ...

It may be like we were living inside a nice quiet library, when suddenly machine guns and rocket propelled grenade erupt. We are living in a fantasy world, where there are a couple thousand atomic bombs, always instantly ready to be used by turning a few keys, and yet, we still live inside the same social systems as were made when there were swords, or gunpowder, both of which were old-fashioned chemically powered weapons, that are almost trivial nothings compared to the postmodernizing weapons that exist today. Therefore, most of us are still mostly inside the calm before the storm, unable to imagine how total war could totally destroy everything we took for granted, and how fast everything could go out of control, IF it was finally pushed far enough ...

Meanwhile, as this thread of comments amply demonstrated, the majority of even the more well-informed and thoughtful people are still drowning in old-fashioned bullshit, and apparently going down for the third time.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:10 | 2827931 Gamma735
Gamma735's picture

I said it yesterday.  Whenever the population>resources then the traditional answer from our banking oligarchs is war.



Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:13 | 2827949 Gamma735
Gamma735's picture

And as Kyle Bass likes to say, "to the victor goes the spoils of war and to the loser goes default and depression."

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 12:00 | 2828179 darteaus
darteaus's picture

Are you claiming that our bankers will start a war between China and Russia over Siberia?

Wed, 09/26/2012 - 08:24 | 2831312 tip e. canoe
tip e. canoe's picture

and they use their stooges that most consider "leaders" "experts" & "pundits" to sell it to the populace.   of course, no one considers whether "scarcity" is real or just another story invented by the same oligarchy.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:10 | 2827935 kito
kito's picture

im sensing a war with iran wont end well for the world................................

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:24 | 2827999 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

well, at least it will end the world

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 12:55 | 2828415 RichardP
RichardP's picture

im sensing a war with iran wont end well for the world....

Did Israel start a war with Iraq when they destroyed Iraq's nuclear capabilities?

Did Israel start a war with Syria when they destroyed Syria's capabilities?

Will Israel start a war with Iran, or will they just destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities?

(Add as much U.S. involvement with Israel in destroying Iran's nuclear facilities as you desire.)

Can Iran acquire nuclear weapons if they want to - simply by purchasing them?

Why on earth would anyone believe that any nation would telegraph their actual defensive or offensive plans by talking about them in public?  I think all the public comments by government officials of all nations is simply a smokescreen that distracts us from what is actually going on.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:15 | 2827962 stiler
stiler's picture

He's about as good as Obama at the dialectical. We have jews in Iran/death to Israel. And Obama: it's just noise/Israel is our ally.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:16 | 2827963 zilverreiger
zilverreiger's picture

Ahmadinejahd is not the agressor here.

Hilarious to see how many slaves in the israel america axis still dont see this, have a look at tfmetals report for instance.


Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:56 | 2828160 RSloane
RSloane's picture

Ahmenfuckwadjihad is too busy killing his own citizens. He has no time for anyone outside Iran. Oh wait yes he does, arresting and beating Al Jazerra reporters and making their entry into Iran illegal.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 14:05 | 2828721 Metalredneck
Metalredneck's picture

Ahmenfuckwadjihad is too busy killing his own citizens.

As opposed to Obammy, right?

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 13:01 | 2828448 RichardP
RichardP's picture

Ahmadinejahd is not the agressor here.

That is not now, and never has been, the issue.  The real issue is whether Iran facilitates and enables other aggressors.  Facts demonstrate that Iran does do that, and that is what needs to be defended against.

And that defense involves way more than simply destroying some centrifuges.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 21:34 | 2830603 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

The real issue is whether the international banksters can continue to create fiat money out of nothing, and force everyone else to accept that!

If so, then those banksters continue to be able to control the world's natural resources.  If not ... well, they refuse to consider that option, but would rather risk world war going out of control!

The real issue is whether any other country will be able to stop being dominated by the international banksters, when the banksters already control the governments of all the biggest countries, and through their propaganda, can use the resources of NATO to attack any other country that will not agree to play within the banksters' systems.

Our weapons are used to protect the banksters' frauds, NOT freedom or democracy, or any other bullshit like that! Thus, there are NO good guys, only different groups of insane criminals, gambling with everyone else's lives.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:16 | 2827965 darteaus
darteaus's picture

" a violent utopian ideology that seeks to force the entire world — by whatever means and at any cost — to conform to American foreign policy imperatives."

Any reputable source for that extreme assertion?


Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:23 | 2827995 dick cheneys ghost
dick cheneys ghost's picture


On CSPAN recently, Bill Kristol made a claim that America was not an Empire

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:26 | 2828012 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

He also claimed he was not an asshole

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:28 | 2828020 pods
pods's picture

Rip, have you been sleeping the last 20 years or so?


Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:57 | 2828166 darteaus
darteaus's picture

Ad hominum, and no reference.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 12:06 | 2828194 AurorusBorealus
AurorusBorealus's picture

The neocons are violent and utopian by their own admission.  You do not recall the explanations of the need for American empire and expansion into the Middle East to spread democracy?  These arguments were made by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and neocon think-tank clones all throughout the build-up to the Iraq war after 9/11.  If you need references to assure you that neocons are imperial, utopian, and aggressive, I suggest you read any number of publications or speaches made by self-identified neocons during this period.  But you already know this and are simply trolling.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 13:03 | 2828463 darteaus
darteaus's picture

"If you need references to assure you that neocons are imperial, utopian, and aggressive"


"you...are simply trolling."


Another person makes unreferenced assertions and ad hominum attacks.


If your case is so persuasive, why don't you simply make it?

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 13:41 | 2828635 akak
akak's picture

Why are you asking us to prove that the sky is blue?

Are you denying the accusations made here against the evil neoconservatives?  If so, present your counterargument, or shut the fuck up.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 12:35 | 2828237 akak
akak's picture

Neoconservatives are more than just merely "violent utopians" --- they are warmongering psychopaths and evil incarnate.


Go ask the 1,000,000+ Iraqis who died as a result of the utterly unnecessary, unprovoked and shameful US invasion of Iraq in 2003, which was instigated largely if not solely by the neoconservative agenda of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Kristol, Krauthammer et al.  But oh, that's right, you can't --- they're dead.


PS: As so-called "neoconservatives" (how are they conservative, when they are by definition pro-big-government, with most of the original neoconservatives having been former radical leftists?) are merely belligerent apes (or reptiles --- the jury is still out there) and not actually human, your accusation of "ad hominem" is not applicable.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 13:04 | 2828445 darteaus
darteaus's picture

"belligerent apes or reptiles"


Baseless assertions and ad hominum attacks.


You are not presenting reasoned arguments based on referenced facts.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 13:08 | 2828489 akak
akak's picture

Hey, I just calls 'em as I sees 'em.

Besides, the "warmongering" and "pro-big-government" aspects of so-called neoconservatism are beyond dispute.

Why do you have such a bug up your ass on this subject anyway?  Do we find ourselves in the august company of the rare ZH two-time Bush voter?

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 13:22 | 2828551 darteaus
darteaus's picture

"..the "warmongering" and "pro-big-government" aspects of so-called neoconservatism are beyond dispute."

Then make that case, right?  Present a reasoned argument or something like that.

Instead you write: "Why do you have such a bug up your ass on this subject anyway?"

I am pointing out the unreferencable assertions and ad hominum attacks of those with your view - like a mob of bullies.


Tue, 09/25/2012 - 13:36 | 2828619 akak
akak's picture

OK, I get it --- you are a bloviating asshole.

But since you asked for it, here it is from the horse's own mouth:

Now fuck you.

Wed, 09/26/2012 - 10:59 | 2831986 darteaus
darteaus's picture

Your response to my request for facts is to provide a link and curse?

Kind of childish...

take care.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 22:44 | 2830780 phyuckyiu
phyuckyiu's picture

I need to make a case for W. Bush running a $500 Billion plus deficit a year, under the banner of Neoconservatism? Perhaps reality will do just fine on that one. Just another idiot who can't understand by picking a team he's been had.

Wed, 09/26/2012 - 10:57 | 2831978 darteaus
darteaus's picture

Check your facts, Bush ran a $500B deficit for one year - not ".$500 Billion plus deficit a year".

Still the ad hominum?  It really is unnecessary, it doesn't convince anyone.  It simply demonstrates that you have, for some reason, a need for an emotional release.

I never identified myself as a Neoconservative, and I reject your presumptive label.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 13:22 | 2828553 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Not only that, Romney got his vote sewed up as well...

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:18 | 2827970 Kristian
Kristian's picture

We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy.

Osama bin Laden


Don't bother, the US has Ben Bernanke. Enough said.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:57 | 2828165 GeezerGeek
GeezerGeek's picture

We are continuing these policies to lead America to the point of bankruptcy.

Obama bin Lyin'

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:19 | 2827975 williambanzai7
williambanzai7's picture


Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:27 | 2828015 Jim in MN
Jim in MN's picture

There once was a job known as POTUS

We loved him the harder he smote us

The fascists held sway

'til one bright sunny day

We awoke and just gave them all notice

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 12:26 | 2828277 akak
akak's picture

Those are definitely Romney voters, every one.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:20 | 2827977 Jim in MN
Jim in MN's picture




Japan protests over Taiwan water cannons

Japan has protested to Taiwan over its use of water cannons against Japanese Coast Guard vessels in Japanese territorial waters around the Senkaku Islands.

The Coast Guard confirmed that 3 Taiwanese patrol vessels used water cannons against its vessels in the area on Tuesday.

Japan's government says such conduct in territorial waters violates international law.

The government lodged a protest with Taiwanese authorities through the Interchange Association, an organization for mutual exchange between Japan and Taiwan.

Sep. 25, 2012 - Updated 07:36 UTC (16:36 JST)

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:32 | 2828030 Son of Loki
Son of Loki's picture

I notice Taipei Toys-R-Us is "sold out" of water pistols.

This is getting serious!


What if they resort to water balloons ?!

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 14:56 | 2828945 JohnFrodo
JohnFrodo's picture

Escalation to Nerf weapons sure to follow

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:24 | 2827982 Jack Burton
Jack Burton's picture

I think it is perceptive to consider "blow back" may work the other way too. The head of Iran makes too many rash statements, he is playing to his base, but this gives Neo-Conservatives in the USA all the ammunition they need to ram through an attack on Iran.

While sensible people know America doesn't have the wealth to fight a long war against Iran costing several trillion minimum, the Neo-Conservatives do not see it that way. As long as Bernanke prints and the world accepts US dollars as a store of value, they think we can wage war using "the printer Bernanke" as funding source.

Iran will be so badly crushed by USA/Israel/NATO/Gulf States air power that even should they hold their nation against invasion, there will be little left but a burnt out cinder of a country.

For Iran to have a future, they need to stay strong and independent, but they need to stop the wild talk and play enough ball with the world to keep a strong portion of other nations like China and Russia on their side. Iran needs allies, their best play is to do all to please Russia and China. Especially China.

If Israel attacks on it's own, then we will know they have either gone mad or have a secret agreemnt under the table with the USA to step in at the appropriate moment.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 12:06 | 2828196 JR
JR's picture

A war of words exists between Israel and Iran, damaging words, threatening words. But action has already begun: the crippling sanctions against Iran with no provable evidence that it is threatening to use nuclear weapons (not identified) against its neighbors and cyber attacks on Iran technology and now evidence that the assassination of Iranians scientists is traced to Israel.

Do these actions not surpass the rhetoric of speech?

 Official Report of Israeli Assassinations in Iran by Michael S. Rozeff (retired professor of economics) on September 24, 2012

U.S. officials are openly saying some things about Israel's participation in assassinations and sabotage inside Iran that they haven't said publicly before. This publicity accompanies leaks that Obama will remove MEK from its terror list.

The U.S. officials say that MEK has worked with the Israelis. MEK, known for past terrorism, denies this. MEK has sought to rehabilitate and/or muddy up its image and become a "pro-democracy" group in Iran, presumably to be supported by the Western powers in their efforts to change the Iranian form of government. This means that it can continue terrorism but it will be Western terrorism.

It's clear that the sophisticated attacks on Iranian facilities and the murders of their scientists can be traced to a sophisticated Israeli source like Mossad. Since this can no longer be denied, it serves Obama's purposes to leak it now via anonymous officials. This fends off Romney's charges that Obama is soft on Iran and foreign policy in general. Israel is useful to Obama as a covered pawn, and so is MEK. Obama need not yet remove MEK, but for election purposes he can get by until the election and defuse the vocal Republican warmongers by leaking a possible action on MEK.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:34 | 2827989 Cult_of_Reason
Cult_of_Reason's picture

He is correct, Israel is bluffing. Israeli do not have the capability to do the job.

And the US does not have any political or economic appetite for another war either.

As a result, Iran is free to do whatever they want.



Israel has no capability to attack Iran without US support


Tue, 09/25/2012 - 21:39 | 2830620 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

I think this is naive, since it is based on believing that longer term assessments of realities actually matter. Both Israel, and the USA, as well as most other countries in NATO, are actually controlled by the people who are locally the best at being dishonest, and backing that up with violence. That is the ONLY thing that they need to continue to be to start a world war. They do NOT have to be sane, indeed, they are who they are precisely because they were the most insane, since they are able to lie to themselves even better than they could lie to everyone else. Therefore, it does NOT matter that world war would be INSANE. It is still going to happen anyway, since the most dishonest and violent people actually control our governments, and they intend on starting a world war ... since it is their established social and psychological habits to continue to behave the ways that they used to behave, and nobody else, in the short-term, can stop them from actually doing that!

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:26 | 2827992 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

If we are stupid enough to invade Iran ,which I believe we are, that will be the final nail in the coffin of the empire. The world will not respond well...China will dump our bonds and the dollar will go bust, but isn't that the plan to begin with?

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:34 | 2828032 Jack Burton
Jack Burton's picture

I think China senses weakness in the USA. They are acting much more forceful in the world and I think they have done the math and know how truely screwed the USA is. They also send large numbers of students and others to study, live and work in the USA. Many of them work for their intelligence as a patriotic duty, so be assured there is little they do NOT know about the state of the USA in every sense. Maybe they are willing to see the USA attack Iran and drive it's economy into depression and collapse. The USA attempt to fund trillions in war costs at the same time China works to dump the dollar as reserve currency and dumps bonds. In fact, China will find willing friends in a dump the dollar campaign.

We are in dangerous territory here in the USA. Few sense how close to the edge we are. But from history, big empires rarely think they are on the edge until it happens. Look how we fund our giant govenment and military! We borrow and print. That is not going to last. China knows we have screwed our own selves, they just need to let us push a little further. An Iran war would suit that goal.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 12:43 | 2828365 WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot
WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot's picture

I think China senses weakness in the USA. They are acting much more forceful in the world and I think they have done the math and know how truely screwed the USA is.

Lol. They're all good at math. Racist.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 15:32 | 2829152 Jack Burton
Jack Burton's picture

HEY! Why don't you grow up? Are you a baby who can't do even basic reading comprehension. "Doing the math" is a common expression applied in any number of cases when you want to call attention to the fact that someone has assesed a situation well.

If you think that is racist you need to grow up big time. Bloody idiot. Where and how did you get that out of my post? 

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:39 | 2828070 RSloane
RSloane's picture

We're doing just fine on those goals without war. Why go through the angst?

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:26 | 2828010 optimator
optimator's picture

The man is a fool.  He should have said, "U.S banks are welcome to open up branches in Iran, and we welcome Burger King and any other chains that wish to do business here"

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 13:12 | 2828505 zerozulu
zerozulu's picture

Well said. In other words, "divide and rule".

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:35 | 2828049 mrktwtch2
mrktwtch2's picture

meanwhile..its buisness as the dips till 1600 spx..doesnt matter who wins the cant short this thing for more than 1 day..

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:41 | 2828077 Crtrvlt
Crtrvlt's picture

And the economic justification for Pentagon spending is even more fallacious when one considers that the $700 billion annual DOD budget creates comparatively few jobs. The days of Rosie the Riveter are long gone; most weapons projects now require very little touch labor. Instead, a disproportionate share is siphoned off into high-cost research and development (from which the civilian economy benefits little); exorbitant management expenditures, overhead and out-and-out padding; and, of course, the money that flows back into the coffers of political campaigns. A million dollars appropriated for highway construction would create two to three times as many jobs as a million dollars appropriated for Pentagon weapons procurement, so the jobs argument is ultimately specious. 

Take away the cash nexus and there still remains a psychological predisposition toward war and militarism on the part of the GOP. This undoubtedly arises from a neurotic need to demonstrate toughness and dovetails perfectly with the belligerent tough-guy pose one constantly hears on right-wing talk radio. Militarism springs from the same psychological deficit that requires an endless series of enemies, both foreign and domestic.

The results of the last decade of unbridled militarism and the Democrats' cowardly refusal to reverse it, have been disastrous both strategically and fiscally. It has made the United States less prosperous, less secure and less free. Unfortunately, the militarism and the promiscuous intervention it gives rise to are only likely to abate when the Treasury is exhausted, just as it happened to the Dutch Republic and the British Empire.


Altogether, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost the U.S. between $4 trillion and $6 trillion, more than half of which would be due to the fighting in Iraq, said Neta Crawford, a political science professor at Brown University.

Her numbers, which are backed by similar studies at Columbia and Harvard universities, estimate the U.S. has already spent $2 trillion on the wars after including debt interest and the higher cost of veterans’ disabilities.


bankruptcy indeed

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:47 | 2828110 Pseudo Anonym
Pseudo Anonym's picture

from the link to guardian:

Al-Qaida has sent a message to the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad asking him to stop spreading conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks.

that tells me everything: Al-Qaida = USA

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:50 | 2828128 Voltaire
Voltaire's picture

NOT american foreign policy imperatives. Israeli ones. The US are fighting israels war. American politicians are AIPAC's muppets

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:51 | 2828131 thetruthseeker
thetruthseeker's picture

Here is my question, did Ahmadinejad say "Israel" or "Zionist regime"?  This is crucial because they are two completely different animals.  There are many Israelis and Israeli politicians who are not Zionist so it is important to make the distinction.  Also note that Iran has the largest Jewish population in the Middle East outside of Israel.  If they wanted to kill all the Jews as Fox News would have you think, then why is this so?  While I do not support Iran's government, or quite frankly much of their cultural practices regarding women, etc., it is important that we understand the truth of what is being said and not just the Western propaganda news media's translation.  Clearly, the West has been itching for a fight with Iran for years and they will justify any excuse to do so.  I also find it ironic that all of a sudden there is a new movie out called Argo.  It is about the Iranian hostage situation with the US Embassy in Tehran.  Amazing timing, or can you say predictive programming to fuel animosity towards the Iranians right at a time when we are on the verge of war.  Open your eyes people and question everything you are told by the government and media.  Once you do, everything becomes so clear.  Take the red pill. 

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 12:47 | 2828381 RSBriggs
RSBriggs's picture

-1  Has nothing to do with Fox news.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 13:18 | 2828537 RichardP
RichardP's picture

... did Ahmadinejad say "Israel" or "Zionist regime"?  This is crucial because they are two completely different animals.

This would maybe be a correct analysis if Ahmadinejad had ever uttered the word Israel.  Then we could argue that he is distinguishing between the two when he says Zionist whatever.  The fact is, he has never uttered the word Israel in public.  He has never acknowledged, in public, that there are two entities to distinguish between; his comments only refer to a Zionist entity.

Given that he has only ever used one term, it is more logical to assume he is conflating the people, the geography, and the militants into the term Zionist.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 16:54 | 2829568 Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill's picture

He said 'the regime'.

The translator said Israel.

I speak Farsi,a lot of the 'translation' was slanted,some plain wrong.

Oh well,whats new.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 17:57 | 2829868 RichardP
RichardP's picture

So - if the regime changed and the Israeli government became populated with jews not connected to the birth of the current state, would that be enough of a regime change for Ahmadinejad?  Or is regime change code for non-jews taking over the government?

If Ahmadinejad is OK with the current state of Israel continuing to exist, just with different jews in charge, then this splitting of hairs makes sense.  But I think a lot of folks believe Ahmadinejad is not OK with the state of Israel continuing to exist.  Therefore, they conclude that regime change does not mean replacing the current jewish politicians with other jewish politicians.  It means getting rid of the state of Israel.  If that is truely what Ahmadinejad is after, then using the term Israel rather than regime change does not seriously change the tenor of Ahmadinejad's remarks.

Can anybody quote Ahmadinejad as saying that he is OK with the state of Israel continuing - so long as they get different jewish politicians into positions of authority?

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:52 | 2828138 MarsInScorpio
MarsInScorpio's picture

I know this is spamming, but tough.

This is for all you China-idiots, here is your "superior" culture we should all want to emulate . . .

Man Crushed by Road Flattening Truck On Orders of Chinese Officials

Note: You'll see his pulverized brains on the roadway . . . the Chinese are the worst of capitalist pigs - no god, therefore no accountability - They are all about greed, and where we are headed with the 1% in charge.

But the MSM won't cover it, and Atlas will just shrug . . .

Wed, 09/26/2012 - 08:18 | 2831300 tip e. canoe
tip e. canoe's picture

it might be wise to stop thinking in terms of countries and start thinking in terms of cabals.    cruelty is a human trait with many flavors.   so is psychological manipulation.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:52 | 2828144 JR
JR's picture

“Invasions”? The author’s wishful thinking that comments from foreign leaders, be it Ahmadinejad or Netanyahu, can bring about yet another Mid East war following the fraudulent based Iraq war, the quagmire-ridden Afghanistan, the duplicitous Libya, the CIA fraudulent intervention in Syria, the drone attacks on sovereign Pakistan, and now the Normandy analysis for Iran, is a little too much.

And would Aziz like to speculate on the occupation now of a giant Mid East country, Iran, and the hatred toward America of what was once a third of the world growing into ninety percent of the world? And where would Aziz be then with his pro-Israel, pro-nonsense philosophy?

Yes, Ahmadinejad is a fountainhead of pejorative rhetoric. And I suppose Netanyahu is another Gandhi? So what we need is a hot, millions-killing third world war; or maybe what we need instead is for the warmongers to shut up and go home.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:56 | 2828159 Vooter
Vooter's picture

If starting a new hot war in the Middle East means we get to send hundreds of thousands of tattooed, video-game-addled subhumans from Jesusland to die for nothing in the Middle East, count me in! Get the skimmer--it's time to clean the pool...

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 12:29 | 2828285 JR
JR's picture

Stephen Lendman, well-known political columnist and talk-show personality, says U.S. media and Hollywood use images that disrespect Muslims.

“For decades, they've been fair game. From silent to more recent films, prejudicial attitudes were fostered. They still are regularly. They disparage Islam in contrast to manufactured notions of Western values, high-mindedness, and moral superiority.

“Islamic tenets are ignored. The Koran teaches love, not hate; peace, not violence; charity, not selfishness; and tolerance, not terrorism.

“Its five pillars include profession of faith, prayer five times daily, fasting during Ramadan, charity, and performing the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in a lifetime for those able to afford it.

“Nonetheless, Muslims are stereotypically portrayed as dangerous gun-toting terrorists. Hate messages repeat regularly. Fear is stoked. Imperial wars of aggression are called justifiable ones…

“They're lawlessly targeted. They're hunted down, rounded up, held in detention, kept in isolation, denied bail, restricted in their right to counsel, tried on secret evidence, convicted on bogus charges, and given long sentences….

“Virtually every imprisoned Muslim is innocent. They're war on terror victims. They're locked up for praying to the wrong God. They're alive, but for those getting inordinately long sentences, they're among the living dead

Major media scoundrels back the worst of US crimes. When Bush administration officials declared war on Islam, they marched in lockstep. They still do. They're reliable imperial cheerleaders.

“They headline inflammatory accounts of innocent Muslims charged domestically. They play the same blame game. Targeted victims are considered guilty by accusation. Before indictment and prosecution, they're convicted in the court of public opinion.”

Their coverage of anti-Muslim hate film violence is appalling.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 12:52 | 2828401 RSBriggs
RSBriggs's picture

Try actually reading the Quarran sometime.  Guess what?  All of the hate and voilence is in there.  As well as Muhammeds sexual preferences tending towards 6 year olds.  It's all in there - try READING it.  The Quarran teaches hate, death to infidels, and that women have no souls, therefore killing or abusing them is no different than removing a rock from your yard.  Religion of Peace?  That's a little something called taqiyaa...   

And this is your idea of Peace? 

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 12:56 | 2828420 akak
akak's picture

Did you ever try reading the Old Testament of the Bible?  ALL of it?

If I ever had any lingering sympathies towards Christianity, and the Abrahamic religions in general, it was extinguished upon reading that grossly violent and hate-filled record.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 13:38 | 2828624 JR
JR's picture

Since you are a scholar acquainted with the many translations, contexts and versions of the Qur’an, please don’t use the many Zionist interpretations of the Qur’an listed on Google. Instead, it is wiser to view the considerable analysis on the internet from scholars concerning context and interpretation of the Qur’an (self defense versus aggression, etc.). Here is a view that I think is worthwhile to consider:

Muhammad Asad, in a document entitled The Message of The Quran and prepared with borrowed text for Arthur's Classic Novels, writes:  

 “In short, the Westerner cannot readily accept the Qur'anic thesis that all life, being God-given, is a unity, and that problems of the flesh and of the mind, of sex and economics, of individual righteousness and social equity are intimately connected with the hopes which man may legitimately entertain with regard to his life after death. This, in my opinion, is one of the reasons for the negative, uncomprehending attitude of most Westerners towards the Qur'an and its teachings. But still another - and perhaps even more decisive - reason may be found in the fact that the Qur'an itself has never yet been presented in any European language in a manner which would make it truly comprehensible.”

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 14:57 | 2828950 Jim in MN
Jim in MN's picture

Oh come on, that's bullshit.  Any decent Barnes & Noble copy will do fine.  Sure, don't use 'evil Zionist translations from Google' but any bookstore will sell you a Koran. 


They do kill a lot of infidels, but overall Mohammed is a solid guy, very thoughtful and Jesus-like (ok Isiah-like if you prefer). 


The thing is, Islam does have the tolerance and mercy built into it that is required to coexist with a free society.  It even has the democratic power structures.  But since say the Egyptian discussions around the turn of the 20th century most of that has been snuffed out in favor of, first, imperial elitist bullshit and, secondly, radicalized 'fundamentalist' bullshit.


At least read your Fazlur Rahman and get back to us.  And....have a nice day.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 16:09 | 2829309 JR
JR's picture

On the blog we were earlier treated to an illiterate charge that Islam is a religion of war and sex. The copies of the Qur’an from the bookstore are not enough; in depth scholarly analyses on the internet, buried by Google, are needed to knock down the mainstream U.S. charges that Islam is a religion of aggression, war and intolerance, as Stephen Lendman says, 

But as regards translations, the scholar Asad says, it "cannot be denied that among the existing translations in almost all of the major European languages there is many a one that has been inspired by malicious prejudice and - especially in earlier times - by misguided 'missionary' zeal, there is hardly any doubt that some of the more recent translations are the work of earnest scholars who, without being actuated by any conscious bias, have honestly endeavoured to render the meaning of the Arabic original into this or that European language; and, in addition, there exist a number of modern translations by Muslims who, by virtue of their being Muslims, cannot by any stretch of the imagination be supposed to have "misrepresented" what, to them, was a sacred revelation,

"Still, none of these translations - whether done by Muslims or by non-Muslims - has so far brought the Qur'an nearer to the hearts or minds of people raised in a different religious and psychological climate and revealed something, however little, of its real depth and wisdom. To some extent this may be due to the conscious and unconscious prejudice against Islam which has pervaded Western cultural notions ever since the time of the Crusades - an intangible heritage of thought and feeling which has left its mark on the attitude towards all things Islamic on the part not only of the Western 'man in the street' but also, in a more subtle manner, on the part of scholars bent on objective research.

"But even this psychological factor does not sufficiently explain the complete lack of appreciation of the Qur'an in the Western world, and this in spite of its undeniable and ever-increasing interest in all that concerns the world of Islam."


Tue, 09/25/2012 - 14:01 | 2828700 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

"Is this your idea of peace?"

Is Pat Robertson & the NYPD your idea of the first amendment?

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 14:55 | 2828939 JohnFrodo
JohnFrodo's picture

The Cusaders following the bible rountly slaughtered women and children and generally behaved like savages. The Moslems on the other hand mostly spared non combatants. Now things have changed 180, the reason is most of the west no longer believes the bible is anything more than a philosophy text. I expect a large minority of Muslims have reached the same conculsion.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 12:03 | 2828189 stant
stant's picture

brother can you spare another war.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 15:31 | 2829154 LMAOLORI
LMAOLORI's picture



Sure he can

U.S. expands its secret war in Africa U.S. President Barack Obama's so-called "secret wars" against al-Qaida are steadily widening, most notably in Africa.

Read more:

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 12:06 | 2828198 stiler
stiler's picture

they're Muslims; they don't want an Israel. Jews are ok, but no Israel. You have to ask, why? 

I'll give you the spiritual answer which the Devil knows quite well: because if there is no Israel, the Messiah (Israel's) cannot return. But now they are back in their land and even if they only had 10x10', they would be transgreesors.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 13:28 | 2828584 RichardP
RichardP's picture

if there is no Israel, the Messiah (Israel's) cannot return.

I understand where you are coming from.  But if God is God, the Messiah can return whenever he wants to.  And some believe that Matthew 24:22 says Christ will return sooner than originally planned: And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. (KJV)

And Jerusalem by any other name would still be Jerusalem.  If that is where the Messiah is to descend to, he can descend there regardless of who is in control.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 14:04 | 2828702 stiler
stiler's picture

All the gentiles should be thankful that Messiah hasn't returned whenever He wants to. This is why He hasn't: to save as many gentiles as possible according to his promise in Isaiah, etc. The scriptures cannot be broken. If it says, and it does, that, "And except those days be shortened...", it means the days that are already ordained to happen. See Fruchtenbaum on this:

(go to second from the bottom, The Basis of the Second Coming of Messiah)

When the Pharisees of Jesus' day said "He has a demon", God said it's over, the 70 AD destruction is set to happen and happen it did. Now after 18 centuries of dispersion (prophesied) they are being regathered. A final regathering will happen during 'Armageddon' in Mat 24, probably involving nuclear, when Jesus says get out of Jerusalem and get out fast. Those believing Jews who have read Matt 24 flee to Bosrah (greek:Petra) where they repent and plead for Messiah's return. They are surrounded by Antichrist's nations, but Jesus Christ, the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, returns to the earth. Thus ends the Age of the Gentiles and begins the 1000 reign of Christ.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!