“They saw their injured country's woe;
The flaming town, the wasted field;
Then rushed to meet the insulting foe;
They took the spear, - but left the shield.”
―Philip Freneau
.
And by a prudent flight and cunning save A life which valour could not, from the grave. A better buckler I can soon regain, But who can get another life again?
Archilochus
On ‘political correctness’, it’s abused as much by those who ‘favour’ it as by those who oppose it.
I had two comments (both abided strictly by his rules) deleted at FT. The reason? Calling out his anti-Jewish crankiness (the invocation of Geller as a Vampyrish Kike or a Pious Patriot was uncalled for: no one has criticised Geller for Garland on account of her Jewishness).
The US right wing tries to counter any accusation of racism as driven by political correctness, thereby ending up denying racism actually exists. It too is dishonest and counter-productive. Racists exist, calling them that isn’t just a political smear.
SilverFiddle said: ”People here are free to not only ignore your religion, but to mock it, thumb their noses at it, and say mean things about it and its adherents.”
FT: True –– unless you happen to be JEWISH. The anti-Antisemitism movement, which now might as well have the full force of LAW behind it, is undoubtedly the origin of Political Correctness ––– surely a much greater threat to Liberty, Self-Determnation, and Freedom of Choice than Global Warming. ;-)
Stop LYING about me. I refuse to engage in a feud of any kind, so this is the last time I intend to address you.
I also refuse to accept personal insults and statements indicative of willful misunderstanding.
How I choose to run my blog is no one's business but mine. You may possess superior intelligence, but you are also an obvious troublemaker, and are, therefore, NOT welcome at MY blog.
I'm an old man and have no time to waste on the likes of you.
FJ, I'd be sorry to lose your participation, but whatever must be must be. It's entirely up to you.
FYI: The day when so-called "anti-Semitic" remarks are no longer "VERBOTEN" will be the day I stop making them. NO ONE can EVER tell ME what I CAN and CANNOT SAY. No one is forcing anyone to LISTEN.
I have to say i again for the record. I don't care WHAT he CALLS himself. I just LOVE Zizek.
Oksana Boyko ain't half bad either. ;-) But doesn't it embarrass you when "foreigners" speak far better English than most native-born Americans –– and many Britishers for that matter?
Every time I turn on the TV and hear these modern American women open their mouths, I cringe. High-pitched, nasal, breathy, slush-mouthed little-girl voices from females in the twenties and thirties and beyond. Megyn Kelly is the only notable exception that comes to mind right now.
I suspect it's all the result of the relentless "dumbing down" process to which everyone under the age of fifty-five has been subjected.
There a right way and a wrong way to deal with PCness. Ridicule has, IMO, always been the more effective. Which is "why" I like Geller. She makes the CAIR clown posse look like bullies. And quess what? They ARE!
You could say that CAIR decided to "ignore" them. You could also argue that in Garland, they decided to retaliate against them. I'm more inclined to believe the LATTER.
Whatever. You suspect ANY Islamic organisation, no matter how kosher they may be. You probably also believe Norquist is an agent of the MB.
Geller’s an attention seeking douchebag and moron. She has the right to organise cartoons of whatever, 100 %. But if she’s to be the vanguard in the fight against ‘The Jihad’, then good night and good luck.
Joe McCarthy was perfectly correct in his understanding of what pernicious, insidious elements were doing to this country. Unfortunately, he was maladroit and didn't handle the task he set for himself with the necessary savoire faire, so he proved to be "easy pickin's" for the unscrupulous, demonically clever ENEMY he set out to unmask and destroy.
We have been much the poorer for McCarthy's failure to complete his task.
He has been unjustly pilloried and vilified as have J. Edgar Hoover and Richard M. Nixon by the corrupt liberal media establishment, which I much prefer to call the ENEMEDIA.
Thus the reputation of three of the most able, dedicated anti-Communists has been forever besmirched and their careers reviled, defamed and broken, because NO ONE can go against JEWS and their particular interests, and hope to survive.
Most dare not acknowledge this anymore, but 60 years ago anti-Commuism and anti-Semitism were practically synonymous. Like Cheese and Crackers or Gin and Vermouth they skipped hand-in-hand down the Road to Perdition.
If you don't want to believe an Old Guard WASP like me, just consult the works of David Horowitz and Michael Savage –– two classic Jewish Red Diaper Babies from New York who got wise to the ROTTENNESS of their parents and the stinking, verminous milieu into which they'd be born, and found within themselves the wisdom and the courage to turn foursquare against it.
In later years HEY have only reiterated, strengthened and fully attested to the undeniable TRUTH of Senator McCarthy's assertions and accusations.
Maybe "Sound Vision" should have restrained themselves instead of celebrating Mohammed, the week after the Charlie Hebdo attack, think?
What is the Left doing to "reign in" Moslem fanatics other than writing apologetics for them?
Show me what you mean by the first: ‘celebrating Mohammed’ isn’t illegal.
It doesn’t matter how much the Left (or ‘moderate Muslims’, for that matter) condemns Islamism, for the Right it’s never enough. When we unequivocally denounced the Charlie Hebdo killers as what they were, Islamist murderers, comments that we were ‘in bed with terrorists’ came streaming in, no matter how many times we reiterated our original condemnation.
For the Right, post-9/11 has become a golden opportunity to smear the Left. It leaves no stone unturned to do so.
FT:
You’re the kind of ‘Patriot’ who claims to love his country but hates 50 % of people living in it. Once you would have destroyed the Left (in those old wet dreams of yours) you’d probably also support Monopolistic Capitalism (or in any case not have any choice to oppose it). That’s called Fascism.
Horowitz and Savage (and Geller of course) are among the most fanatical of supporters of Israel’s policies in the Occupied Territories (Horriblewitz denies there is an Occupation, full stop). I think you’re an antisemitic supporter of Israel. There are many like you.
Most dare not acknowledge this anymore, but 60 years ago anti-Commuism and anti-Semitism were practically synonymous. Like Cheese and Crackers or Gin and Vermouth they skipped hand-in-hand down the Road to Perdition.
In the 30s antisemitism in the US was on a par with Europe’s (where that particular sin had originated, of course). With anticommunism that had very little to do.
Of course if you’re going to justify antisemitism on the basis of some Marxist Jews then you’re revealing the source of your particular form of Manicheism. QED.
When we unequivocally denounced the Charlie Hebdo killers as what they were, Islamist murderers, comments that we were ‘in bed with terrorists’ came streaming in, no matter how many times we reiterated our original condemnation.
Gee, forgive me if a "Celebrate Mohammed" event a week after the attack doesn't sound like an act of someone sincerely seeking to reconcile differences...
I'm an "acta non verba" kinda guy. And the two ain't lining up.
You’re invocation of ‘Inspector AIPac’ as a demonstration of ‘not toeing the party line’ is also quite feeble, IMO. Your spoof blog isn’t antisemitic. It lampoons the slavish adherence to pro-israel policies by both sides of the political aisle in the US (and was created with one particular blogger in mind). But the Zionist Lobby and its considerable power is an example of how political correctness can indeed stifle debate.
No doubt. Recall that one-blogger whom it spoofs and his anti-Paul tirades. Inspector AIPac was intended to expose those attempts by the pro-Israeli bloc to influence American politics (the RNC specifically). It was also used to expose the Sheldon Adelson funding of Gingrich in 2008, and his connection to business (gambling) interests.
On 7 January 2015, two Islamist gunmen[53] forced their way into the Paris headquarters of Charlie Hebdo and opened fire, killing twelve: staff cartoonists Charb, Cabu, Honoré, Tignous and Wolinski,[54] economist Bernard Maris, editors Elsa Cayat and Mustapha Ourrad, guest Michel Renaud, maintenance worker Frédéric Boisseau and police officers Brinsolaro and Merabet, and wounding eleven, four of them seriously.[55][56][57][58][59][60] During the attack, the gunmen shouted "Allahu akbar" ("God is great" in Arabic) and also "the Prophet is avenged".[53][61] President François Hollande described it as a "terrorist attack of the most extreme barbarity".[62] The two gunmen were identified as Saïd Kouachi and Chérif Kouachi, French Muslim brothers of Algerian descent.
A series of rallies took place in cities across France on 10–11 January 2015 to honour the victims of the Charlie Hebdo shooting, and also to voice support for freedom of speech
On January 15, 2015 Sound Vision sponsored a Stand with the Prophet Rally in Garland Texas
On May 3, 2015, two Islamic terrorist attacked a Draw Mohammed cartoon even in the same building in Garland Texas that the "Stand with the Prophet" even was held.
‘Muslims of America: you can be seen but not heard!’ Uppity minorities, G-ddammit!
Now, had I been a Muslim in the US in the aftermath of Charlie, I’d have been cowering under a rock somewhere. With FEAR. I think that would have met with your approval.
The distance between Reps and Dems on Israel isn’t even a cigarette paper thick. The Lobby buys whoever it needs. The Dems who opposed Bibi’s caper in Congress support Israel no less than Michele Bachmann.
Obama has done less for ‘peace’ in IP than G.W. Bush, that’s sayin’ somethin’.
Iman Malik Mujahid (aka Abdul Malik Mujahid), founder and president of the Chicago-based Sound Vision Foundation.
'Mujahid', is Arabic for 'one who makes jihad' or 'one who fights in a war for Islam.'
Abdul Malik Muhajid, the director of Sound Vision, is listed as the National Coordinator for the Bosnia Task Force and Kosova Task Force. The Bosnia Task Force is alleged to have direct ties to Al Qaeda and the Benevolence International Foundation, an Al Qaeda funding front whose founder Ernaam Arnaout, is now jailed on terror funding charges.' Bio info on Abdul Malik Mujahid shows that he was the national president of the Islamic Circle of North America, an organisation which has been directly linked to Al Qaeda.
ICNA was named in a May 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document -- titled "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America" -- as one of the Brotherhood’s 29 likeminded "organizations of our friends" that shared the common goal of destroying America and turning it into a Muslim nation. These "friends" were identified by the Brotherhood as groups that could help teach Muslims "that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands ... so that ... God's religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions."
There is only ONE sensible solution to ALL this incredible barrage of bothersome BS:
DIDADIN
Detain Intern Disempower And Deport Islamaniacs Now
D-I-D-A-D-I-N!
Those who would be kind to the cruel are sure to be cruel to the kind."
"Those who expect to reap the blessing of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
~ Thomas Paine (1737-1809)
DIDADIN!
However illegal, impolitic, inadvisable, unconstitutional, un-American, immoral or impracticable others claim it to be I will maintain that position till my dying day.
When the Handwriting on the Wall sends a clear, uncompromising message, and STILL we fail to heed its stern warning, we DESERVE to be ECLIPSED.
Your comment threads do require the poster to prove he's not a robot. Up to a few days ago that was done by 'word verification'. Now the visitor is shown 9 photos and told to tick the 'hamburgers'. Or the 'steaks'. Or the 'bread'...
The comment before this one was 'steaks'.
I don't have a problem with it. I'm just sayin'... It's a Blogger feature (but you can switch it off, I think)
I specifically turned off Word Verification for this blog. It doesn't ask me to do it. I don't get it. :(
ps - The reCAPCHA box is down there that says "Please prove you're not a robot" I just don't check it... and it doesn't care that I don't. Try not checking it and go straight to "publish your comment." That's what I do.
BTW, If you’re ever made redundant by the North Atlantic Behemoth, you can always seek ‘gainful employment’ by that other Behemoth and become a Mechanical Turk! ;-)
Once you've "proven" that you're not a robot, it provides the guarantee to the "community" that you're (google account subsequently logged into is) a human and not spam. I suspect it logs your posts and runs a "repetition" algorithm against them, or something...
An extraordinarily unpleasant person took me to task at someone else's blog the other day for what-she-insisted-were "anti-Semitic" sentiments I have expressed from time to time.
Because I am militantly opposed to Political Correctness, Hate Speech Laws and ANY of the many forms of tyranny petty and otherwise that ceaselessly beset mankind, I often say things I know I am not SUPPOSED to say for THAT very reason.
I told my churlish critic:
The day Anti-Semitic sentiments CEASE to be FORBIDDEN, VERBOTEN and INTERDIT will be the day I STOP MAKING THEM.
This is a case of reasoning in bad faith. It’s also confusing: does FT make bigoted anti-Jewish statements just because he wants to stick two fingers up to the ‘PC crowd’ or because he genuinely believes in Palaeolithic crap about da Joooooos?
There are far more effective ways to fight PC than to ‘pretend’ to be a rabid antisemite.
FJ wrote:
But to be honest, I really don't care if Gellar is Jewish. Her message resonates with Americans and Israel is a pretty useful model of how the Moslem world "really" feels about America. They're (Israel) the "Little" Satan, we're the "Great" one.
It doesn’t occur to you that the ‘Muslim world’ (what about Christian Palestinians, FJ? Secular ones, anyone?) believes the US (West) to be the ‘Great Satan’ at least in no considerable part BECAUSE of its slavish support for ‘Little Satan’?
Did you know (for instance) that Iran and Israel were once the closest alliance in that region? And why do you think that changed so radically and so quickly?
I warmly recommend Alison Weir’s ‘If Americans Knew’ website, even if Weir has in the past made statements about the Jewish religion that are rather stereotypical.
With the exception of hardcore leftists who reflexively love and adore anything that runs contrary to the best interests of these United States and of Israel too it seems, […]
Someone needs to explain to me how in this day and age the “best interests of these United States” still run congruent with those of Israel.
At the height of the Cold War (ca 1970) I can see that. But NOW???
The Brits undoubtedly believed that Israel (ca 1948) would be a handy piece of real estate to have, smack bang in the heart of the ME but they learned the hard way (but not after the Palestinians had essentially been rendered irrelevant in their own country).
Did you know (for instance) that Iran and Israel were once the closest alliance in that region? And why do you think that changed so radically and so quickly?
I warmly recommend Alison Weir’s ‘If Americans Knew’ website, even if Weir has in the past made statements about the Jewish religion that are rather stereotypical.
I'm very familiar with events in the ME from 1976 onward. And yes, I think I know why Iranian/Israeli relations deteriorated. The '79 embassy takeover was a bit traumatic for all of us "Yanks".
In 1979, Iran became an Islamic theocracy, and the "Great Satan" theory now had supporters on the Shi'a side of Islam.
fyi - I was an undergrauate taking courses in Naval Science, Weapons, and American Defense Policy from 75-79. Many of my classmates graduated into the midst of a tanker war in the Persian Gulf. The conflict has been near and dear to my heart, ever since.
And remember that "Grover Norquist" piece at Glenn Beck's? Guess who "funds" Weir's organization. You've got it, the same Moslem idiot who's has Grover Norquist on his payroll.
Look, my daughter graduated from Georgetown Law a couple of years ago. The Saudi's are funding chairs and Islamic study centers throughout the DC region. They've been "buying" non-Islamic spokemen my the pocketful.
The "University discourse" in PoMo society IS the Master Discourse. And the Saudi's are rapidly becoming major players in the American university scene.
The '79 embassy takeover was a bit traumatic for all of us "Yanks".
In 1979, Iran became an Islamic theocracy, and the "Great Satan" theory now had supporters on the Shi'a side of Islam.
The Islamic revolution was a way of getting rid of the Shah regime, an American puppet regime installed by the CIA on request of the British, by getting rid of a democratically elected government (Dr Mossadeq). An old fashioned imperialist coup, in plain English. The Shah regime was universally hated in Iran and with good reason.
That the Mullah regime is itself g-dawful doesn’t change that. Iran has a long history of Western interference/imperialism and they’re not going to take any more of that.
I support internal regime change, fully. It will happen.
As regards Abdul Rahman Al-Amoudi funding Weir’s organisation, what evidence do you have for that assertion?
In addition to the affiliations listed above, Alamoudi has also been, at various times, a board member of American Muslims for Jerusalem; the head of the American Task Force for Bosnia; a board member of the Council for the National Interest Foundation...
...democratically elected government (Dr Mossadeq).
The phrase gets FUNNIER every time it gets asserted. :)
While Mossadegh was elected to the Majles (the Iranian Parliament) by democratic means (Iran at the time was not a democracy by any means, though some aspects of it were democratic in nature), the office of Prime Minister was nominated from amongst the Majles deputies by the Shah.
In other words, he was the "Shah appointed" Prime Minister of Iran.
Some "context" with which to judge Mossadegh's "democratic legitimacy"...
from Wiki:
General Haj-Ali Razmara was appointed as prime minister on 27 June 1950 by the Shah. On 3 March 1951 he appeared before the Majlis (parliament) in an attempt to persuade the deputies against "full nationalization on the grounds that Iran could not override its international obligations and lacked the capacity to run the oil industry on its own." He was assassinated four days later by Khalil Tahmasebi, a member of the militant fundamentalist group Fadayan-e Islam, while praying in a mosque...
Hossein Ala was appointed as prime minister on 15 March 1951 by the Shah. On the very same day, 15 March, the Iranian Parliament and on 20 March 1951 the Iranian Senate passed a bill to nationalize the British-owned and operated AIOC, thereby taking control of Iran's oil industry.
Another force for nationalization was the Tudeh or Communist party. In early April 1951, the party organized nationwide strikes and riots in protest against delays in nationalizing the oil industry and against low wages and bad housing in the oil industry. This display of strength, along with public celebration at the assassination of General Razmara, made an impact on the deputies of the Majlis.[28] 27 April 1951 Prime Minister Ala presented his government program to the Parliament. In a heated debate he was heavily affronted and resigned.
On 28 April 1951, the Shah appointed Mossadegh as Prime Minister after the Majlis (Parliament of Iran) nominated Mosaddegh by a vote of 79–12. The Shah was aware of Mosaddegh's rising popularity and political power, after a period of assassinations and political unrest by the National Front.
The new administration introduced a wide range of social reforms: unemployment compensation was introduced, factory owners were ordered to pay benefits to sick and injured workers, and peasants were freed from forced labor in their landlords' estates. Twenty percent of the money landlords received in rent was placed in a fund to pay for development projects such as public baths, rural housing, and pest control.[29]
On 1 May, Mosaddegh nationalized the AIOC, cancelling its oil concession (expired in 1993) and expropriating its assets.
Still enormously popular in late 1951, Mosaddegh called elections. His base of support was in urban areas and not in the provinces.[33] This fact was reflected in the rejection of Mosaddegh's bill for electoral reform (which no longer disqualified illiterates from electoral participation) by the conservative bloc, on the grounds that it would "unjustly discriminate patriots who had been voting for the last forty years".[34]
According to Ervand Abrahamian: "Realizing that the opposition would take the vast majority of the provincial seats, Mosaddegh stopped the voting as soon as 79 deputies – just enough to form a parliamentary quorum — had been elected."[35] An alternative account is offered by Stephen Kinzer. Beginning in the early 1950s under the guidance of C.M. Woodhouse, chief of the British intelligence station in Tehran, Britain's covert operations network had funneled roughly £10,000 per month to the Rashidian brothers (two of Iran's most influential royalists) in the hope of buying off, according to CIA estimates, "the armed forces, the Majlis (Iranian parliament), religious leaders, the press, street gangs, politicians and other influential figures".[36] Thus, in his statement asserting electoral manipulation by "foreign agents", Mosaddegh suspended the elections. His National Front party had made up 30 of the 79 deputies elected. Yet none of those present vetoed the statement, and the elections were postponed indefinitely. The 17th Majlis convened on February 1952.
Tension soon began to escalate in the Majlis. Conservative opponents refused to grant Mosaddegh special powers to deal with the economic crisis caused by the sharp drop in revenue and voiced regional grievances against the capital Tehran, while the National Front waged "a propaganda war against the landed upper class"
More popular than ever, a greatly strengthened Mosaddegh convinced parliament to grant him emergency powers for six months to "decree any law he felt necessary for obtaining not only financial solvency, but also electoral, judicial, and educational reforms".[41] Majlis deputies elected Ayatollah Abol-Ghasem Kashani as House Speaker. Kashani's Islamic scholars, as well as the Tudeh Party, proved to be two of Mosaddegh's key political allies, although relations with both were often strained.
With his emergency powers, Mosaddegh tried to strengthen the democratic political institutions by limiting the monarchy's powers,[42] cutting the Shah's personal budget, forbidding him to communicate directly with foreign diplomats, transferring royal lands back to the state and expelling his politically active sister Ashraf Pahlavi.[40]
(cont) In January 1953, Mosaddegh successfully pressed Parliament to extend his emergency powers for another 12 months. With these powers, he decreed a land reform law that established village councils and increased the peasants' share of production.[41] This weakened the landed aristocracy, abolishing Iran's centuries-old feudal agriculture sector, replacing it with a system of collective farming and government land ownership. Mosaddegh saw these reforms as a means of checking the power of the Tudeh Party, which had been agitating for general land reform among the peasants.
However, during this time Iranians were "becoming poorer and unhappier by the day" thanks to the British boycott. Mosaddegh's political coalition began to fray, his enemies increased in number.[43]
Partly through the efforts of Iranians working as British agents, several former members of Mosaddegh's coalition turned against him. They included Mozzafar Baghai, head of the worker-based Toilers party; Hussein Makki, who had helped lead the takeover of the Abadan refinery and was at one point considered Mosadegh's heir apparent; and most outspokenly Ayatollah Kashani, who damned Mosaddegh with the "vitriol he had once reserved for the British"
Who organized the coup? And how can a KING organize a coup AGAINST his own regime?
Add as much subtext as you want, FJ. The Mossadegh regime was overthrown by the CIA.
The Shah's regime, with full support of the US, was one of the most deplorable of it's time in that area.
Geopolitics as usual.
See also Western support for Saddam Hussein, until he wasn't useful anymore. He gassed the Kurds alright: while the CIA was blaming the Iranians for it!
A LOT of sins passed muster under the rubric of the Cold War. To blame the "winning" side is just disengenuous. The Shah's regime was deplorable, no doubt. But then,so were the Communists who attempted to ASSASSINATE him in 1949. Was the Shah just supposed to roll over and let some minor "clerics" to SUCCEED in undermining his authority? Get real. Anybody who claims that Mossadeg was a "man of the people" has got to be an idiot, fool, or someone pushing an agenda that he loosely fits.
As for Saddam Hussein, you should be thanking us for hanging him, instead of pretending that for the American presence, the Middle East would be bustling utopia.
Killgore, Weir and IAK were never charged with or convicted of anything. Considering how much the AIPAC enforcers, Daniel Pipes, TIP and the ADL would like to get their mits on that website/organisation that’s clear proof of no legal wrong doing.
I’d be a lot more worried about the ‘AIPACisation’ of the US than the ‘Islamification’ of it. The former has its tentacles firmly into US ME FP, the latter are amateurs compared to it.
You're right of course. Insiders are always more dangerous than outsiders. And in running a blog, I've found its' always more difficult to control your friends, than your enemies.
As for the BDS movement, I've never been a big fan of cultural capitalism. If you want to boycott someone, be my guest. Just don't expect me to follow your boycott. And forgive me if I favour dumping UNWRA from the International dole. Sicty years of welfare is at least fifty too many.
BDS is born out of desperation and boycotts (imperfect tools as they are) are the least violent, most ‘moral’ method of applying pressure on a regime that stubbornly refuses any compliance with I’nal Law. Being a ‘grassroots’ movement doesn’t make it per se ‘good’ but when those capable of applying real pressure (the West) refuse to do so, someone will fill that vacuum.
Does your opposition to ‘Cultural Capitalism’ extend also to sanctions against Iran?
Cutting support for Palestinian refugees only strengthens Israel’s case for No Right to Return (something that could be honoured in many ways, BTW). It’s recipe for future wannabee ethnic cleansers to assume that ‘oh well, no problem with ‘refugees’, let their ‘Brethren’ absorb them. Nothing to see here’. The ‘what refugees?’ has been an important Zionist argument for as long as the refugees have existed.
This debate [thread] has now gone on long enough and all good things must come to a (temporary) end. So I’ll end with a closing question for you.
Removing a Tyrant like Saddam Hussein can never be a ‘Bad Thing’ of course. But the case for liberating the DRNK (for instance) would have far greater ‘moral’ justification than the hanging of Herr Hussein. Yet we don’t even contemplate that.
My question is, why IYO did the US, UK and a few water carriers decide to invade Iraq?
When you sign a "surrender" you either follow through with its' terms or you risk a continuation of the conflict. Imagine if the NAZI's had tried to violate terms in '53, would the world have let them?
76 comments:
Nothing to disagree here.
On ‘political correctness’, it’s abused as much by those who ‘favour’ it as by those who oppose it.
I had two comments (both abided strictly by his rules) deleted at FT. The reason? Calling out his anti-Jewish crankiness (the invocation of Geller as a Vampyrish Kike or a Pious Patriot was uncalled for: no one has criticised Geller for Garland on account of her Jewishness).
The US right wing tries to counter any accusation of racism as driven by political correctness, thereby ending up denying racism actually exists. It too is dishonest and counter-productive. Racists exist, calling them that isn’t just a political smear.
Much lighter and from a slightly different angle: Stewart Lee on political correctnesss (top middle video).
One of the reasons I no linger comment at "liberally run" blogs. I got tired of pertinent commnents disappearing.
SilverFiddle said: ”People here are free to not only ignore your religion, but to mock it, thumb their noses at it, and say mean things about it and its adherents.”
FT: True –– unless you happen to be JEWISH. The anti-Antisemitism movement, which now might as well have the full force of LAW behind it, is undoubtedly the origin of Political Correctness ––– surely a much greater threat to Liberty, Self-Determnation, and Freedom of Choice than Global Warming. ;-)
You don't have to toe the line, FT. I know I don't. ;)
It's all a state of mind.
Gert,
Stop LYING about me. I refuse to engage in a feud of any kind, so this is the last time I intend to address you.
I also refuse to accept personal insults and statements indicative of willful misunderstanding.
How I choose to run my blog is no one's business but mine. You may possess superior intelligence, but you are also an obvious troublemaker, and are, therefore, NOT welcome at MY blog.
I'm an old man and have no time to waste on the likes of you.
FJ, I'd be sorry to lose your participation, but whatever must be must be. It's entirely up to you.
FYI: The day when so-called "anti-Semitic" remarks are no longer "VERBOTEN" will be the day I stop making them. NO ONE can EVER tell ME what I CAN and CANNOT SAY. No one is forcing anyone to LISTEN.
I have to say i again for the record. I don't care WHAT he CALLS himself. I just LOVE Zizek.
Oksana Boyko ain't half bad either. ;-) But doesn't it embarrass you when "foreigners" speak far better English than most native-born Americans –– and many Britishers for that matter?
Every time I turn on the TV and hear these modern American women open their mouths, I cringe. High-pitched, nasal, breathy, slush-mouthed little-girl voices from females in the twenties and thirties and beyond. Megyn Kelly is the only notable exception that comes to mind right now.
I suspect it's all the result of the relentless "dumbing down" process to which everyone under the age of fifty-five has been subjected.
PFUI!
There a right way and a wrong way to deal with PCness. Ridicule has, IMO, always been the more effective. Which is "why" I like Geller. She makes the CAIR clown posse look like bullies. And quess what? They ARE!
...Stewart Lee's attempts to make the contrary point, notwithstanding.
Oksana Boyko did acquit her position quite well, IMO.
FT
"Stop LYING about me. I refuse to engage in a feud of any kind, so this is the last time I intend to address you."
No lies, FT. You deleted without any reason. Stick your blog where the sun doesn't shine.
And yes, by your own admission you're an antisemitic crank. Grow up.
FJ:
"She makes the CAIR clown posse look like bullies. And quess what? They ARE!"
Funny that. CAIR deliberately decided to ignore Garland/Geller. Still not good enough? Damned if you do, damned if you don't?
You could say that CAIR decided to "ignore" them. You could also argue that in Garland, they decided to retaliate against them. I'm more inclined to believe the LATTER.
ps - You can't decouple SOund Vision from CAIR. From their web page you can note their CAIR/ISNA affiliations.
PS
Whatever. You suspect ANY Islamic organisation, no matter how kosher they may be. You probably also believe Norquist is an agent of the MB.
Geller’s an attention seeking douchebag and moron. She has the right to organise cartoons of whatever, 100 %. But if she’s to be the vanguard in the fight against ‘The Jihad’, then good night and good luck.
I get whiffs of McCarthyism, frankly speaking.
Maybe "Sound Vision" should have restrained themselves instead of celebrating Mohammed, the week after the Charlie Hebdo attack, think?
What is the Left doing to "reign in" Moslem fanatics other than writing apolgetics for them?
Joe McCarthy was perfectly correct in his understanding of what pernicious, insidious elements were doing to this country. Unfortunately, he was maladroit and didn't handle the task he set for himself with the necessary savoire faire, so he proved to be "easy pickin's" for the unscrupulous, demonically clever ENEMY he set out to unmask and destroy.
We have been much the poorer for McCarthy's failure to complete his task.
He has been unjustly pilloried and vilified as have J. Edgar Hoover and Richard M. Nixon by the corrupt liberal media establishment, which I much prefer to call the ENEMEDIA.
Thus the reputation of three of the most able, dedicated anti-Communists has been forever besmirched and their careers reviled, defamed and broken, because NO ONE can go against JEWS and their particular interests, and hope to survive.
Most dare not acknowledge this anymore, but 60 years ago anti-Commuism and anti-Semitism were practically synonymous. Like Cheese and Crackers or Gin and Vermouth they skipped hand-in-hand down the Road to Perdition.
If you don't want to believe an Old Guard WASP like me, just consult the works of David Horowitz and Michael Savage –– two classic Jewish Red Diaper Babies from New York who got wise to the ROTTENNESS of their parents and the stinking, verminous milieu into which they'd be born, and found within themselves the wisdom and the courage to turn foursquare against it.
In later years HEY have only reiterated, strengthened and fully attested to the undeniable TRUTH of Senator McCarthy's assertions and accusations.
Oh, FreeThinke, please tell me you are not once again preaching that unserious approval of that stinking pile of crap McCarthy.
Can't you tell what a bad person is?
JMJ
FJ:
Maybe "Sound Vision" should have restrained themselves instead of celebrating Mohammed, the week after the Charlie Hebdo attack, think?
What is the Left doing to "reign in" Moslem fanatics other than writing apologetics for them?
Show me what you mean by the first: ‘celebrating Mohammed’ isn’t illegal.
It doesn’t matter how much the Left (or ‘moderate Muslims’, for that matter) condemns Islamism, for the Right it’s never enough. When we unequivocally denounced the Charlie Hebdo killers as what they were, Islamist murderers, comments that we were ‘in bed with terrorists’ came streaming in, no matter how many times we reiterated our original condemnation.
For the Right, post-9/11 has become a golden opportunity to smear the Left. It leaves no stone unturned to do so.
FT:
You’re the kind of ‘Patriot’ who claims to love his country but hates 50 % of people living in it. Once you would have destroyed the Left (in those old wet dreams of yours) you’d probably also support Monopolistic Capitalism (or in any case not have any choice to oppose it). That’s called Fascism.
Horowitz and Savage (and Geller of course) are among the most fanatical of supporters of Israel’s policies in the Occupied Territories (Horriblewitz denies there is an Occupation, full stop). I think you’re an antisemitic supporter of Israel. There are many like you.
FT:
Most dare not acknowledge this anymore, but 60 years ago anti-Commuism and anti-Semitism were practically synonymous. Like Cheese and Crackers or Gin and Vermouth they skipped hand-in-hand down the Road to Perdition.
In the 30s antisemitism in the US was on a par with Europe’s (where that particular sin had originated, of course). With anticommunism that had very little to do.
Of course if you’re going to justify antisemitism on the basis of some Marxist Jews then you’re revealing the source of your particular form of Manicheism. QED.
When we unequivocally denounced the Charlie Hebdo killers as what they were, Islamist murderers, comments that we were ‘in bed with terrorists’ came streaming in, no matter how many times we reiterated our original condemnation.
Gee, forgive me if a "Celebrate Mohammed" event a week after the attack doesn't sound like an act of someone sincerely seeking to reconcile differences...
I'm an "acta non verba" kinda guy. And the two ain't lining up.
FJ:
You’re invocation of ‘Inspector AIPac’ as a demonstration of ‘not toeing the party line’ is also quite feeble, IMO. Your spoof blog isn’t antisemitic. It lampoons the slavish adherence to pro-israel policies by both sides of the political aisle in the US (and was created with one particular blogger in mind). But the Zionist Lobby and its considerable power is an example of how political correctness can indeed stifle debate.
FJ:
Point to the event. I've no knowledge of it.
No doubt. Recall that one-blogger whom it spoofs and his anti-Paul tirades. Inspector AIPac was intended to expose those attempts by the pro-Israeli bloc to influence American politics (the RNC specifically). It was also used to expose the Sheldon Adelson funding of Gingrich in 2008, and his connection to business (gambling) interests.
I've no knowledge of it.
And yet it perfectly explains and connects the Garland, Texas terrorist attacks. Funny that no one seems to connect the two, think?
May 12, 10:55 pointed to it.
FJ:
I'm asking for a LINK that describes the event ('celebrating Mohammed by SoundVision). I simply don't know OF IT.
Ok, let me have look. Ta.
Recapping the chronology:
On 7 January 2015, two Islamist gunmen[53] forced their way into the Paris headquarters of Charlie Hebdo and opened fire, killing twelve: staff cartoonists Charb, Cabu, Honoré, Tignous and Wolinski,[54] economist Bernard Maris, editors Elsa Cayat and Mustapha Ourrad, guest Michel Renaud, maintenance worker Frédéric Boisseau and police officers Brinsolaro and Merabet, and wounding eleven, four of them seriously.[55][56][57][58][59][60] During the attack, the gunmen shouted "Allahu akbar" ("God is great" in Arabic) and also "the Prophet is avenged".[53][61] President François Hollande described it as a "terrorist attack of the most extreme barbarity".[62] The two gunmen were identified as Saïd Kouachi and Chérif Kouachi, French Muslim brothers of Algerian descent.
A series of rallies took place in cities across France on 10–11 January 2015 to honour the victims of the Charlie Hebdo shooting, and also to voice support for freedom of speech
On January 15, 2015 Sound Vision sponsored a Stand with the Prophet Rally in Garland Texas
On May 3, 2015, two Islamic terrorist attacked a Draw Mohammed cartoon even in the same building in Garland Texas that the "Stand with the Prophet" even was held.
Assuming this is the ‘event’:
http://www.soundvision.com/article/pamela-geller-co-s-attack-on-sound-vision-our-side-of-the-story
What did ‘SoundVision’ do wrong? N-O-T-H-I-N-G.
‘Muslims of America: you can be seen but not heard!’ Uppity minorities, G-ddammit!
Now, had I been a Muslim in the US in the aftermath of Charlie, I’d have been cowering under a rock somewhere. With FEAR. I think that would have met with your approval.
What did ‘SoundVision’ do wrong? N-O-T-H-I-N-G
THEY CAME BACK 4 MONTHS LATER WITH ASSAULT RIFLES AND SHOT A GUARD.
ACTA NON VERBA!
That wasn't soundvision.
(the RNC specifically)
The distance between Reps and Dems on Israel isn’t even a cigarette paper thick. The Lobby buys whoever it needs. The Dems who opposed Bibi’s caper in Congress support Israel no less than Michele Bachmann.
Obama has done less for ‘peace’ in IP than G.W. Bush, that’s sayin’ somethin’.
That wasn't soundvision.
...and Sinn Fein isn't the IRA.
You're making distinctions without differences, IMO.
The distance between Reps and Dems on Israel isn’t even a cigarette paper thick.
Not entirely true. Since Lieberman had to run as a Independent, the DNC is definitely moving into a more pro-Palestinian camp. Just ask Jimmah Cahtah!
Iman Malik Mujahid (aka Abdul Malik Mujahid), founder and president of the Chicago-based Sound Vision Foundation.
'Mujahid', is Arabic for 'one who makes jihad' or 'one who fights in a war for Islam.'
Abdul Malik Muhajid, the director of Sound Vision, is listed as the National Coordinator for the Bosnia Task Force and Kosova Task Force. The Bosnia Task Force is alleged to have direct ties to Al Qaeda and the Benevolence International Foundation, an Al Qaeda funding front whose founder Ernaam Arnaout, is now jailed on terror funding charges.' Bio info on Abdul Malik Mujahid shows that he was the national president of the Islamic Circle of North America, an organisation which has been directly linked to Al Qaeda.
Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA)
ICNA was named in a May 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document -- titled "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America" -- as one of the Brotherhood’s 29 likeminded "organizations of our friends" that shared the common goal of destroying America and turning it into a Muslim nation. These "friends" were identified by the Brotherhood as groups that could help teach Muslims "that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands ... so that ... God's religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions."
Red Herring:
Sinn Fein isn't the IRA, correct.
Keep linking and alleging. ALL Muslims have links to Al Qaeda. It goes without saying, dude.
Anyone from soundvision indicted yet? For ANYTHING? Or are they all protected by Grover Norquist?
Or is it the handiwork of the President's Men?
You're funny.
LOL
:P They'll be singing "Strange Fruit" in Texas again before you know it! :)
Why just in Texas? ;-)
Have you seen the new Captchas, BTW? I didn't select enough hamburgers on the last one! I think it's da Joooos behind this...
It'll start in Texas. They haven't evolved to the merely "artifiically intelligent" there, yet.
ps - I don't use "wrod verification". It's a pain in the *ss. So yes, it probably is "da jooooos"! ;)
listening now....Have a terrific weekend my friend! :-)I could never pronounce his name..lol
DIDADIN!
There is only ONE sensible solution to ALL this incredible barrage of bothersome BS:
DIDADIN
Detain
Intern
Disempower
And
Deport
Islamaniacs
Now
D-I-D-A-D-I-N!
Those who would be kind to the cruel are sure to be cruel to the kind."
"Those who expect to reap the blessing of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
~ Thomas Paine (1737-1809)
DIDADIN!
However illegal, impolitic, inadvisable, unconstitutional, un-American, immoral or impracticable others claim it to be I will maintain that position till my dying day.
When the Handwriting on the Wall sends a clear, uncompromising message, and STILL we fail to heed its stern warning, we DESERVE to be ECLIPSED.
I hear you, FT. At a minimum, we need to reduce/stop this country's Immigration Insanity.
And Angel, I still slur my z's and j's... and I've been following him for a few years now. ;)
FT:
Define "Islamaniacs"?
FJ:
I don't use "wrod verification".
Your comment threads do require the poster to prove he's not a robot. Up to a few days ago that was done by 'word verification'. Now the visitor is shown 9 photos and told to tick the 'hamburgers'. Or the 'steaks'. Or the 'bread'...
The comment before this one was 'steaks'.
I don't have a problem with it. I'm just sayin'... It's a Blogger feature (but you can switch it off, I think)
I specifically turned off Word Verification for this blog. It doesn't ask me to do it. I don't get it. :(
ps - The reCAPCHA box is down there that says "Please prove you're not a robot" I just don't check it... and it doesn't care that I don't. Try not checking it and go straight to "publish your comment." That's what I do.
I’ll try that now.
BTW, If you’re ever made redundant by the North Atlantic Behemoth, you can always seek ‘gainful employment’ by that other Behemoth and become a Mechanical Turk! ;-)
Yup, you're right. Bypassing that "Please prove you're not a robot" works for me.
I wonder what it's point is then...
How jolly!
Deleting comments again, FT? On a post about Free Speech? Tsk, tsk.
Define "Islamaniacs"?
Once you've "proven" that you're not a robot, it provides the guarantee to the "community" that you're (google account subsequently logged into is) a human and not spam. I suspect it logs your posts and runs a "repetition" algorithm against them, or something...
:P
I get that, just don't see why the option of proving one is not a robot is still available after that. Must be a Blogger thing...
Could be...
FT wrote (over at FT)
An extraordinarily unpleasant person took me to task at someone else's blog the other day for what-she-insisted-were "anti-Semitic" sentiments I have expressed from time to time.
Because I am militantly opposed to Political Correctness, Hate Speech Laws and ANY of the many forms of tyranny petty and otherwise that ceaselessly beset mankind, I often say things I know I am not SUPPOSED to say for THAT very reason.
I told my churlish critic:
The day Anti-Semitic sentiments CEASE to be FORBIDDEN, VERBOTEN and INTERDIT will be the day I STOP MAKING THEM.
This is a case of reasoning in bad faith. It’s also confusing: does FT make bigoted anti-Jewish statements just because he wants to stick two fingers up to the ‘PC crowd’ or because he genuinely believes in Palaeolithic crap about da Joooooos?
There are far more effective ways to fight PC than to ‘pretend’ to be a rabid antisemite.
FJ wrote:
But to be honest, I really don't care if Gellar is Jewish. Her message resonates with Americans and Israel is a pretty useful model of how the Moslem world "really" feels about America. They're (Israel) the "Little" Satan, we're the "Great" one.
It doesn’t occur to you that the ‘Muslim world’ (what about Christian Palestinians, FJ? Secular ones, anyone?) believes the US (West) to be the ‘Great Satan’ at least in no considerable part BECAUSE of its slavish support for ‘Little Satan’?
Did you know (for instance) that Iran and Israel were once the closest alliance in that region? And why do you think that changed so radically and so quickly?
I warmly recommend Alison Weir’s ‘If Americans Knew’ website, even if Weir has in the past made statements about the Jewish religion that are rather stereotypical.
Then there’s this little gem (FT):
With the exception of hardcore leftists who reflexively love and adore anything that runs contrary to the best interests of these United States and of Israel too it seems, […]
Someone needs to explain to me how in this day and age the “best interests of these United States” still run congruent with those of Israel.
At the height of the Cold War (ca 1970) I can see that. But NOW???
The Brits undoubtedly believed that Israel (ca 1948) would be a handy piece of real estate to have, smack bang in the heart of the ME but they learned the hard way (but not after the Palestinians had essentially been rendered irrelevant in their own country).
Did you know (for instance) that Iran and Israel were once the closest alliance in that region? And why do you think that changed so radically and so quickly?
I warmly recommend Alison Weir’s ‘If Americans Knew’ website, even if Weir has in the past made statements about the Jewish religion that are rather stereotypical.
I'm very familiar with events in the ME from 1976 onward. And yes, I think I know why Iranian/Israeli relations deteriorated. The '79 embassy takeover was a bit traumatic for all of us "Yanks".
In 1979, Iran became an Islamic theocracy, and the "Great Satan" theory now had supporters on the Shi'a side of Islam.
fyi - I was an undergrauate taking courses in Naval Science, Weapons, and American Defense Policy from 75-79. Many of my classmates graduated into the midst of a tanker war in the Persian Gulf. The conflict has been near and dear to my heart, ever since.
And remember that "Grover Norquist" piece at Glenn Beck's? Guess who "funds" Weir's organization. You've got it, the same Moslem idiot who's has Grover Norquist on his payroll.
Look, my daughter graduated from Georgetown Law a couple of years ago. The Saudi's are funding chairs and Islamic study centers throughout the DC region. They've been "buying" non-Islamic spokemen my the pocketful.
The "University discourse" in PoMo society IS the Master Discourse. And the Saudi's are rapidly becoming major players in the American university scene.
FJ:
The '79 embassy takeover was a bit traumatic for all of us "Yanks".
In 1979, Iran became an Islamic theocracy, and the "Great Satan" theory now had supporters on the Shi'a side of Islam.
The Islamic revolution was a way of getting rid of the Shah regime, an American puppet regime installed by the CIA on request of the British, by getting rid of a democratically elected government (Dr Mossadeq). An old fashioned imperialist coup, in plain English. The Shah regime was universally hated in Iran and with good reason.
That the Mullah regime is itself g-dawful doesn’t change that. Iran has a long history of Western interference/imperialism and they’re not going to take any more of that.
I support internal regime change, fully. It will happen.
As regards Abdul Rahman Al-Amoudi funding Weir’s organisation, what evidence do you have for that assertion?
Council for the National Interest (of which "If Americans Knew" board member Paul Findley is a founder)
"Abdurahman Alamoudi"
In addition to the affiliations listed above, Alamoudi has also been, at various times, a board member of American Muslims for Jerusalem; the head of the American Task Force for Bosnia; a board member of the Council for the National Interest Foundation...
...democratically elected government (Dr Mossadeq).
The phrase gets FUNNIER every time it gets asserted. :)
While Mossadegh was elected to the Majles (the Iranian Parliament) by democratic means (Iran at the time was not a democracy by any means, though some aspects of it were democratic in nature), the office of Prime Minister was nominated from amongst the Majles deputies by the Shah.
In other words, he was the "Shah appointed" Prime Minister of Iran.
Some "context" with which to judge Mossadegh's "democratic legitimacy"...
from Wiki:
General Haj-Ali Razmara was appointed as prime minister on 27 June 1950 by the Shah. On 3 March 1951 he appeared before the Majlis (parliament) in an attempt to persuade the deputies against "full nationalization on the grounds that Iran could not override its international obligations and lacked the capacity to run the oil industry on its own." He was assassinated four days later by Khalil Tahmasebi, a member of the militant fundamentalist group Fadayan-e Islam, while praying in a mosque...
Hossein Ala was appointed as prime minister on 15 March 1951 by the Shah. On the very same day, 15 March, the Iranian Parliament and on 20 March 1951 the Iranian Senate passed a bill to nationalize the British-owned and operated AIOC, thereby taking control of Iran's oil industry.
Another force for nationalization was the Tudeh or Communist party. In early April 1951, the party organized nationwide strikes and riots in protest against delays in nationalizing the oil industry and against low wages and bad housing in the oil industry. This display of strength, along with public celebration at the assassination of General Razmara, made an impact on the deputies of the Majlis.[28] 27 April 1951 Prime Minister Ala presented his government program to the Parliament. In a heated debate he was heavily affronted and resigned.
On 28 April 1951, the Shah appointed Mossadegh as Prime Minister after the Majlis (Parliament of Iran) nominated Mosaddegh by a vote of 79–12. The Shah was aware of Mosaddegh's rising popularity and political power, after a period of assassinations and political unrest by the National Front.
The new administration introduced a wide range of social reforms: unemployment compensation was introduced, factory owners were ordered to pay benefits to sick and injured workers, and peasants were freed from forced labor in their landlords' estates. Twenty percent of the money landlords received in rent was placed in a fund to pay for development projects such as public baths, rural housing, and pest control.[29]
(cont)
On 1 May, Mosaddegh nationalized the AIOC, cancelling its oil concession (expired in 1993) and expropriating its assets.
Still enormously popular in late 1951, Mosaddegh called elections. His base of support was in urban areas and not in the provinces.[33] This fact was reflected in the rejection of Mosaddegh's bill for electoral reform (which no longer disqualified illiterates from electoral participation) by the conservative bloc, on the grounds that it would "unjustly discriminate patriots who had been voting for the last forty years".[34]
According to Ervand Abrahamian: "Realizing that the opposition would take the vast majority of the provincial seats, Mosaddegh stopped the voting as soon as 79 deputies – just enough to form a parliamentary quorum — had been elected."[35] An alternative account is offered by Stephen Kinzer. Beginning in the early 1950s under the guidance of C.M. Woodhouse, chief of the British intelligence station in Tehran, Britain's covert operations network had funneled roughly £10,000 per month to the Rashidian brothers (two of Iran's most influential royalists) in the hope of buying off, according to CIA estimates, "the armed forces, the Majlis (Iranian parliament), religious leaders, the press, street gangs, politicians and other influential figures".[36] Thus, in his statement asserting electoral manipulation by "foreign agents", Mosaddegh suspended the elections. His National Front party had made up 30 of the 79 deputies elected. Yet none of those present vetoed the statement, and the elections were postponed indefinitely. The 17th Majlis convened on February 1952.
Tension soon began to escalate in the Majlis. Conservative opponents refused to grant Mosaddegh special powers to deal with the economic crisis caused by the sharp drop in revenue and voiced regional grievances against the capital Tehran, while the National Front waged "a propaganda war against the landed upper class"
More popular than ever, a greatly strengthened Mosaddegh convinced parliament to grant him emergency powers for six months to "decree any law he felt necessary for obtaining not only financial solvency, but also electoral, judicial, and educational reforms".[41] Majlis deputies elected Ayatollah Abol-Ghasem Kashani as House Speaker. Kashani's Islamic scholars, as well as the Tudeh Party, proved to be two of Mosaddegh's key political allies, although relations with both were often strained.
With his emergency powers, Mosaddegh tried to strengthen the democratic political institutions by limiting the monarchy's powers,[42] cutting the Shah's personal budget, forbidding him to communicate directly with foreign diplomats, transferring royal lands back to the state and expelling his politically active sister Ashraf Pahlavi.[40]
(cont) In January 1953, Mosaddegh successfully pressed Parliament to extend his emergency powers for another 12 months. With these powers, he decreed a land reform law that established village councils and increased the peasants' share of production.[41] This weakened the landed aristocracy, abolishing Iran's centuries-old feudal agriculture sector, replacing it with a system of collective farming and government land ownership. Mosaddegh saw these reforms as a means of checking the power of the Tudeh Party, which had been agitating for general land reform among the peasants.
However, during this time Iranians were "becoming poorer and unhappier by the day" thanks to the British boycott. Mosaddegh's political coalition began to fray, his enemies increased in number.[43]
Partly through the efforts of Iranians working as British agents, several former members of Mosaddegh's coalition turned against him. They included Mozzafar Baghai, head of the worker-based Toilers party; Hussein Makki, who had helped lead the takeover of the Abadan refinery and was at one point considered Mosadegh's heir apparent; and most outspokenly Ayatollah Kashani, who damned Mosaddegh with the "vitriol he had once reserved for the British"
Who organized the coup? And how can a KING organize a coup AGAINST his own regime?
Add as much subtext as you want, FJ. The Mossadegh regime was overthrown by the CIA.
The Shah's regime, with full support of the US, was one of the most deplorable of it's time in that area.
Geopolitics as usual.
See also Western support for Saddam Hussein, until he wasn't useful anymore. He gassed the Kurds alright: while the CIA was blaming the Iranians for it!
lol!
A LOT of sins passed muster under the rubric of the Cold War. To blame the "winning" side is just disengenuous. The Shah's regime was deplorable, no doubt. But then,so were the Communists who attempted to ASSASSINATE him in 1949. Was the Shah just supposed to roll over and let some minor "clerics" to SUCCEED in undermining his authority? Get real. Anybody who claims that Mossadeg was a "man of the people" has got to be an idiot, fool, or someone pushing an agenda that he loosely fits.
As for Saddam Hussein, you should be thanking us for hanging him, instead of pretending that for the American presence, the Middle East would be bustling utopia.
Mr Obama believes himself to be a clever man by creating a power vacuum in the region. One thing is for certain. Nature abhors a vacuum.
FJ:
Killgore, Weir and IAK were never charged with or convicted of anything. Considering how much the AIPAC enforcers, Daniel Pipes, TIP and the ADL would like to get their mits on that website/organisation that’s clear proof of no legal wrong doing.
I’d be a lot more worried about the ‘AIPACisation’ of the US than the ‘Islamification’ of it. The former has its tentacles firmly into US ME FP, the latter are amateurs compared to it.
According to this AIPAC is now trying to criminalise BDS. It seems that Steven Harper is trying to beat them to it.
You're right of course. Insiders are always more dangerous than outsiders. And in running a blog, I've found its' always more difficult to control your friends, than your enemies.
As for the BDS movement, I've never been a big fan of cultural capitalism. If you want to boycott someone, be my guest. Just don't expect me to follow your boycott. And forgive me if I favour dumping UNWRA from the International dole. Sicty years of welfare is at least fifty too many.
FJ:
BDS is born out of desperation and boycotts (imperfect tools as they are) are the least violent, most ‘moral’ method of applying pressure on a regime that stubbornly refuses any compliance with I’nal Law. Being a ‘grassroots’ movement doesn’t make it per se ‘good’ but when those capable of applying real pressure (the West) refuse to do so, someone will fill that vacuum.
Does your opposition to ‘Cultural Capitalism’ extend also to sanctions against Iran?
Cutting support for Palestinian refugees only strengthens Israel’s case for No Right to Return (something that could be honoured in many ways, BTW). It’s recipe for future wannabee ethnic cleansers to assume that ‘oh well, no problem with ‘refugees’, let their ‘Brethren’ absorb them. Nothing to see here’. The ‘what refugees?’ has been an important Zionist argument for as long as the refugees have existed.
This debate [thread] has now gone on long enough and all good things must come to a (temporary) end. So I’ll end with a closing question for you.
Removing a Tyrant like Saddam Hussein can never be a ‘Bad Thing’ of course. But the case for liberating the DRNK (for instance) would have far greater ‘moral’ justification than the hanging of Herr Hussein. Yet we don’t even contemplate that.
My question is, why IYO did the US, UK and a few water carriers decide to invade Iraq?
That's too easy. They violated the terms of their '91 surrender.
There can be no "international law" unless someone is occassionally brought to the bar. Else ALL the dictators and potentates will laugh at the UN.
FJ:
They violated the terms of their '91 surrender.
In what way, specifically?
They promised to open themselves up to UN Inspections. They threw out the inspectors one time too many.
When you sign a "surrender" you either follow through with its' terms or you risk a continuation of the conflict. Imagine if the NAZI's had tried to violate terms in '53, would the world have let them?
Post a Comment