Middle East
Jul 11, 2008



Page 1 of 2
DISPATCHES FROM AMERICA
Why the US won't attack Iran
By Tom Engelhardt

It's been on the minds of antiwar activists and war critics since 2003. And little wonder. If you don't remember the pre-invasion of Iraq neo-con quip, "Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran ..." - then take notice. Even before American troops entered Iraq, knocking off Iran was already "Regime Change: The Sequel". It was always on the George W Bush agenda and, for a faction of the administration led by Vice President peener Cheney, it evidently still is.

Add to that a series of provocative statements by Bush, the vice president and other top US officials and former officials. Take Cheney's daughter Elizabeth, who recently sent this verbal message to the Iranians, "[D]espite what you may be hearing



from Congress, despite what you may be hearing from others in the administration who might be saying force isn't on the table ... we're serious."

Asked about an Israeli strike on Iran, she said, "I certainly don't think that we should do anything but support them." Similarly, former United Nations ambassador John Bolton suggested that the Bush administration might launch an Iranian air assault in its last, post-election weeks in office.

Consider as well the evident relish with which the president and other top administration officials regularly refuse to take "all options" off that proverbial "table" (at which no one bothers to sit down to talk). Throw into the mix semi-official threats, warnings and hair-raising leaks from Israeli officials and intelligence types about Iran's progress in producing a nuclear weapon and what Israel might do about it. Then there were those recent reports on a "major" Israeli "military exercise" in the Mediterranean that seemed to prefigure a future air assault on Iran. ("Several American officials said the Israeli exercise appeared to be an effort to develop the military's capacity to carry out long-range strikes and to demonstrate the seriousness with which Israel views Iran's nuclear program.")

From the other side of the American political aisle comes a language hardly less hair-raising, including Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton's infamous comment about how the US could "totally obliterate" Iran (in response to a hypothetical Iranian nuclear attack on Israel). Congressman Ron Paul recently reported that fellow representatives "have openly voiced support for a pre-emptive nuclear strike" on Iran, while the resolution soon to come before the House (HJ Res 362), supported by Democrats as well as Republicans, urges the imposition of the kind of sanctions and a naval blockade on Iran that would be tantamount to a declaration of war.

Stir in a string of new military bases the US has been building within kilometers of the Iranian border, the repeated crescendos of US military charges about Iranian-supplied weapons killing American soldiers in Iraq, and the revelation by Seymour Hersh, the US's premier investigative reporter, that, late last year the Bush administration launched - with the support of the Democratic leadership in Congress - a US$400 million covert program "designed to destabilize [Iran's] religious leadership", including cross-border activities by US special operations forces and a low-level "war of terror" through surrogates in regions where Balochi and Ahwazi Arab minorities are strongest. (Precedents for this terror campaign include previous US Central Intelligence Agency-run [CIA] campaigns in Afghanistan in the 1980s, using car bombs and even camel bombs against the Russians, and in Iraq in the 1990s, using car bombs and other explosives in an attempt to destabilize Saddam Hussein's regime.)

Add to this combustible mix the unwillingness of the Iranians to suspend their nuclear enrichment activities, even for a matter of weeks, while negotiating with the Europeans over their nuclear program. Throw in as well various threats from Iranian officials in response to the possibility of a US or Israeli attack on their nuclear facilities, and any number of other alarums, semi-official predictions ("A senior defense official told ABC News there is an 'increasing likelihood' that Israel will carry out such an attack ..."), reports, rumors and warnings - and it's hardly surprising that the political Internet has been filled with alarming (as well as alarmist) pieces claiming that an assault on Iran may be imminent.

Hersh, who certainly has his ear to the ground in Washington, has publicly suggested that a victory by Democratic Senator Barack Obama in the presidential race might be the signal for the Bush administration to launch an air campaign against that country. As Jim Lobe of Inter Press Service has pointed out, there have been a number of "public warnings by US hawks close to Cheney's office that either the Israelis or the US would attack Iran between the November elections and the inaugural of a new president in January 2009".

Given the Bush administration's "preventive war" doctrine which has opened the way for the launching of wars without significant notice or obvious provocation, and the penchant of its officials to ignore reality, all of this should frighten anyone. In fact, it's not only war critics who are increasingly edgy. In recent months, jumpy (and greedy) commodity traders, betting on a future war, have boosted these fears. (Every bit of potential bad news relating to Iran only seems to push the price of a barrel of oil further into the stratosphere.) And mainstream pundits and journalists are increasingly joining them.

No wonder. It's a remarkably frightening scenario, and, if there's one lesson this administration has taught us these last years, it's that nothing's "off the table", not for officials who, only a few years ago, believed themselves capable of creating their own reality and imposing it on the planet. An "unnamed administration official" - generally assumed to be former presidential advisor Karl Rove - famously put it this way to journalist Ron Suskind in October 2004:
[He] said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community", which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality". I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
A future global oil shock
Nonetheless, sometimes - as in Iraq - reality has a way of biting back, no matter how mad or how powerful the imperial dreamer. So, let's consider reality for a moment. When it comes to Iran, reality means oil and natural gas. These days, any twitch of trouble, or potential trouble, affecting the petroleum market, no matter how minor - from Mexico to Nigeria - forces the price of oil another bump higher.

Possessing the world's second-largest reserves of oil and natural gas, Iran is no speed bump on the energy map. The National Security Network, a group of national security experts, estimates that the Bush administration's policy of bluster, threat and intermittent low-level actions against Iran has already added a premium of $30-$40 to every $140 barrel of oil. Then there was the one-day $11 spike after Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz suggested that an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities was "unavoidable".

Given that, let's imagine, for a moment, what almost any version of an air assault - Israeli, American or a combination of the two - would be likely to do to the price of oil. When asked recently by Brian Williams on NBC Nightly News about the effects of an Israeli attack on Iran, correspondent Richard Engel responded, "I asked an oil analyst that very question. He said, 'The price of a barrel of oil? Name your price: $300, $400 a barrel'." Former CIA official Robert Baer suggested in Time Magazine that such an attack would translate into $12 gas at the pump. ("One oil speculator told me that oil would hit $200 a barrel within minutes.")

Those kinds of price leaps could take place in the panic that preceded any Iranian response. But, of course, the Iranians, no matter how badly hit, would be certain to respond - by themselves and through proxies in the region in myriad possible ways. Iranian officials have regularly been threatening all sorts of hell should they be attacked, including "blitzkrieg tactics" in the region. Oil Minister Gholam Hossein Nozari typically swore that his country would "react fiercely, and nobody can imagine what would be the reaction of Iran".

The head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), Mohammed Jafari, said, "Iran's response to any military action will make the invaders regret their decision and action." (Jafari had already warned that if attacked, Iran would launch a barrage of missiles at Israel and close the Hormuz Strait, the outlet for oil tankers leaving the Persian Gulf.") Ali Shirazi, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's representative to IRGC, offered the following, "The first bullet fired by America at Iran will be followed by Iran burning down its vital interests around the globe."

Let's take a moment to imagine just what some of the responses to any air assault might be. The list of possibilities is nearly endless and many of them would be hard even for the planet's preeminent military power to prevent. They might include, as a start, the mining of the Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant portion of the world's oil passes, as well as other disruptions of shipping in the region. (Don't even think about what would happen to insurance rates for oil tankers!)

In addition, American troops on their mega-bases in Iraq, rather than being a powerful force in any attack - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has already cautioned Bush that Iraqi territory cannot be used to attack Iran - would instantly become so many hostages to Iranian actions, including the possible targeting of those bases by missiles. Similarly, US supply lines for those troops, running from Kuwait past the southern oil port of Basra might well become hostages of a different sort, given the outrage that, in Shi'ite regions of Iraq, would surely follow an attack. Those lines would assumedly not be impossible to disrupt.

Imagine, as well, what possible disruptions of the modest Iraqi oil supply might mean in the chaos of the moment, with Iranian oil already off the market. Then consider what the targeting of even small numbers of Iranian missiles on the Saudi and Kuwaiti oil fields could do to global oil markets. (It might not even matter whether they actually hit anything.) And that, of course, just scratches the surface of the range of retaliatory possibilities available to Iranian leaders.

Looked at another way, Iran is a weak regional power (which hasn't invaded another country in living memory) that nonetheless retains a remarkable capacity to inflict grievous harm locally, regionally and globally.

Such a scenario would result in a global oil shock of almost inconceivable proportions. For any American who believes that he or she is experiencing "pain at the pump" right now, just wait until you experience what a true global oil shock would involve.

And that's without even taking into consideration what spreading chaos in the oil heartlands of the planet might mean, or what might happen if Hezbollah or Hamas took action of any sort against Israel, and Israel responded. Mohamed ElBaradei, the sober-minded head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, considering the situation, said the following, "A military strike, in my opinion, would be worse than anything possible. It would turn the region into a fireball ..."

This, then, is the baseline for any discussion of an attack on Iran. This is reality, and it has to be daunting for an administration that already finds itself militarily stretched to the limit, unable even to find the reinforcements it wants to send into Afghanistan.

Can Israel attack Iran?
Let's leave to the experts the question of whether Israel could actually launch an effective air strike against Iranian nuclear facilities on its own - about which there are grave doubts. And let's instead try to imagine what it would mean for Israel to launch such an assault (egged on by the vice president's faction in the US government) in the last months, or even weeks, of the second term of an especially lame lame-duck president and an historically unpopular administration.

From Iran's foreign minister, we already know that the Iranians would treat an Israeli attack as if it were an American one, whether or not American planes were involved - and little wonder. For one thing, Israeli planes heading for Iran would undoubtedly have to cross Iraqi air space, at present controlled by the United States, not the nearly air-force-less Maliki government. (In fact, in Status of Forces Agreement negotiations with the Iraqis, the Bush administration has demanded that the US retain control of that air space, up to 29,000 feet (8,839 meters), after December 31, 2008, when the United Nations mandate runs out.)

In other words, on the eve of the arrival of a new American administration, Israel, a small, vulnerable Middle Eastern state deeply reliant on its American alliance, would find itself responsible for starting an American war (associated with a vice

Jul 11, 2008



Page 2 of 2
DISPATCHES FROM AMERICA
Why the US won't attack Iran
By Tom Engelhardt

president of unparalleled unpopularity) and for a global oil shock of staggering proportions, if not a global great depression. It would also be the proximate cause for a regional "fireball". (Oil-poor Israel would undoubtedly also be economically wounded by its own strike.)

In addition, the latest American National Intelligence Estimate on Iran concluded that the Iranians stopped weaponizing parts of their nuclear program in 2003, and American intelligence reputedly doubts recent Israeli warnings that Iran is on the verge of a bomb. Of course, Israel itself has an estimated - though unannounced - nuclear force of about 200 such weapons.

Simply put, it is next to inconceivable that the present riven Israeli



government would be politically capable of launching such an attack on Iran on its own, or even in combination with only a faction, no matter how important, in the US government. And such a point is more or less taken for granted by many Israelis (and Iranians). Without a full-scale "green light" from the Bush administration, launching such an attack could be tantamount to long-term political suicide.

Only in conjunction with an American attack would an Israeli attack (rash to the point of madness even then) be likely. So let's turn to the Bush administration and consider what might be called the Hersh scenario.

The Obama factor
The first problem is a simple one. Oil, which was at $146 a barrel last week, dropped to $136 (in part because of a statement by Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad dismissing "the possibility that war with the United States and Israel was imminent"), and, on Wednesday, rose a dollar to $137 in reaction to Iranian missile tests.

But, whatever its immediate zigs and zags, the overall pattern of the price of oil seems clear enough. Some suggest that, by the time of any Obama victory, a barrel of crude oil will be at $170. The chairman of the giant Russian oil monopoly Gazprom recently predicted that it would hit $250 within 18 months - and that's without an attack on Iran.

For those eager to launch a reasonably no-pain campaign against Iran, the moment is already long gone. Every leap in the price of oil only emphasizes the pain to come. In turn, that means, with every passing day, it's madder - and harder - to launch such an attack. There is already significant opposition within the administration; the American people, feeling pain, are unprepared for and, as polls indicate, massively unwilling to sanction such an attack. There can be no question that the Bush legacy, such as it is, would be secured in infamy forever and a day.

Now, consider recent administration actions on North Korea. Facing a "reality" that first-term Bush officials would have abjured, the president and his advisors not only negotiated with that nuclearized "axis of evil" nation, but are now removing it from the Trading with the Enemy Act list and the State Sponsor of Terrorism list. No matter what steps Kim Jong-il's regime has taken, including blowing up the cooling tower at the Yongbyon reactor, this is nothing short of a stunning reversal for this administration. An angry Bolton, standing in for the Cheney faction, compared what happened to a "police truce with the Mafia". And Cheney's anger over the decision - and the policy - was visible and widely reported.

It's possible, of course, that Cheney and associates are simply holding their fire for what they care most about, but here's another question that needs to be considered: does Bush actually support his imperial vice president in the manner he once did? There's no way to know, but Bush has always been a more important figure in the administration than many critics like to imagine. The North Korean decision indicates that Cheney may not have a free hand from the president on Iran policy either.

The adults in the room
And what about the opposition? I'm not talking about those of us out here who would oppose such a strike. I mean within the world of Bush's Washington. Forget the Democrats. They hardly count and, as Hersh has pointed out, their leadership already signed off on that $400 million covert destabilization campaign.

I mean the adults in the room, who have been in short supply indeed these last years in the Bush administration, specifically Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen. (Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice evidently falls into this camp as well, although she's proven herself something of a president-enabling nonentity over the years.)

With former president Jimmy Carter's national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, Gates tellingly co-chaired a task force sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations in 2004 which called for negotiations with Iran. He arrived at the Pentagon early in 2007 as an envoy from the world of former president George H W Bush and as a man on a mission. He was there to staunch the madness and begin the clean up in the imperial Augean stables.

In his Congressional confirmation hearings, he was absolutely clear: any attack on Iran would be a "very last resort". Sometimes, in the bureaucratic world of Washington, a single "very" can tell you what you need to know. Until then, administration officials had been referring to an attack on Iran simply as a "last resort". He also offered a bloodcurdling scenario for what the aftermath of such an American attack might be like:
It's always awkward to talk about hypotheticals in this case. But I think that while Iran cannot attack us directly militarily, I think that their capacity to potentially close off the Persian Gulf to all exports of oil, their potential to unleash a significant wave of terror both in the - well, in the Middle East and in Europe and even here in this country is very real ... Their ability to get Hezbollah to further destabilize Lebanon I think is very real. So I think that while their ability to retaliate against us in a conventional military way is quite limited, they have the capacity to do all of the things, and perhaps more, that I just described.
And perhaps more ... That puts it in a nutshell.

Hersh, in his most recent piece on the administration's covert program in Iran, reports the following:
A Democratic senator told me that, late last year, in an off-the-record lunch meeting, Secretary of Defense Gates met with the Democratic caucus in the Senate. (Such meetings are held regularly.) Gates warned of the consequences if the Bush administration staged a preemptive strike on Iran, saying, as the senator recalled, "We'll create generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will be battling our enemies here in America." Gates' comments stunned the Democrats at the lunch.
In other words, in 2007, early and late, the US's new secretary of defense managed to sound remarkably like one of those Iranian officials issuing warnings. Gates, who has a long history as a skilled Washington in-fighter, has once again proven that skill. So far, he seems to have outmaneuvered the Cheney faction.

The March "resignation" of CENTCOM commander Admiral William J Fallon, outspokenly against an administration strike on Iran, sent both a shiver of fear through war critics and a new set of attack scenarios coursing through the political Internet, as well as into the world of the mainstream media. As reporter Lobe points out at his invaluable Lobelog blog, however, Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Gates' man in the Pentagon, has proven nothing short of adamant when it comes to the inadvisability of attacking Iran.

His recent public statements have actually been stronger than Fallon's (and the position he fills is obviously more crucial than CENTCOM commander). Lobe comments that, at a July 2 press conference at the Pentagon, Mullen "repeatedly made clear that he opposes an attack on Iran - whether by Israel or his own forces - and, moreover, favors dialogue with Tehran, without the normal White House nuclear preconditions."

Mullen, being an adult, has noticed the obvious. As columnist Jay Bookman of the Atlanta Constitution put the matter recently: "A US attack on Iran's nuclear installations would create trouble that we aren't equipped to handle easily, not with ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Adm Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, drove that point home in a press conference last week at the Pentagon."

The weight of reality
Here's the point: yes, there is a powerful faction in this administration, headed by the vice president, which has, it seems, saved its last rounds of ammunition for a strike against Iran. The question, of course, is: are they still capable of creating "their own reality" and imposing it, however briefly, on the planet? Every tick upwards in the price of oil says no. Every day that passes makes an attack on Iran harder to pull off.

On this subject, panic may be everywhere in the world of the political Internet, and even in the mainstream, but it's important not to make the mistake of overestimating these political actors or underestimating the forces arrayed against them. It's a reasonable proposition today - as it wasn't perhaps a year ago - that, whatever their desires, they will not, in the end, be able to launch an attack on Iran; that, even where there's a will, there may not be a way.

They would have to act, after all, against the unfettered opposition of the American people; against leading military commanders who, even if obliged to follow a direct order from the president, have other ways to make their wills known; against key figures in the administration; and, above all, against reality which bears down on them with a weight that is already staggering - and still growing.

And yet, of course, for the maddest gamblers and dystopian dreamers in our history, never say never.

Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project, runs the Nation Institute's TomDispatch.com. The World According to TomDispatch: America in the New Age of Empire (Verso, 2008), a collection of some of the best pieces from his site, has just been published. Focusing on what the mainstream media hasn't covered, it is an alternative history of the mad Bush years.

(Copyright 2008 Tom Engelhardt.)

(Used by permission Tomdispatch)

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JG11Ak03.html

An excellent reason point of view from Tom. two thumbs up, Booya!

But it would be wise to see from what overall perspective the piece comes. I mean we unlike TRom here want to be fair and balanced, well somne do any way.



The American Empire Project


Americans have long believed that the very notion of empire is an offense against our democratic heritage, yet in recent months, these two words -- American empire -- have been on everyone's lips. At this moment of unprecedented economic and military strength, the leaders of the United States have embraced imperial ambitions openly. How did we get to this point? And what lies down the road?

To address these questions, Metropolitan Books offers the American Empire Project. In these short, argument-driven books, our leading writers and thinkers will mount an immodest challenge to the fateful exercise of empire-building and to explore every facet of the developing American imperium, while suggesting alternate ways of thinking about, confronting, and acting in a new American century.

The project has been developed by Tom Engelhardt (www.tomdispatch.com) and Steve Fraser, two editors with long and distinguished careers in publishing -- at Pantheon and Basic Books -- who are themselves historians and writers. In future seasons, Chalmers Johnson, who made "blowback" a household word, will take on the far reach of American militarism and what it means to garrison the planet in The Sorrows of Empire. Michael Klare will ask, in Blood and Oil, how American dependency on petroleum drives our strategic planning. And in How to Succeed at Globalization: A Primer for the Roadside Vendor, Mexican cartoonist Rafeal Barajas will depict the world economy from the perspective of the very small businessman.

The American Empire Project Links

Other sites of interest

TomDispatch

News Alternative

BuzzFlash

truthout

Common Dreams Newscenter

International Relations Center

TomPaine.commonsense

openDemocracy

Alternative Radio

Daily KOS

The Progressive

Media Matters for America

ProgressiveTrail.org

Robert Dreyfuss

The Defense Strategy Review Page

War Crimes Watch

Democracy Now.



America in the New Age of Empire

By Tom Engelhardt

The Good News in Iraq (Don't Count on It)
By Tom Engelhardt

http://www.tomdispatch.com/




Thanks Loose it was enlightening?

That is all!!

united states is a great country.
there is no doubt about it at all.
united states has done a great job by improving life style of common man of the world.
today, we have comparatively better living conditions than yesterday. this credit goes to the united states.
we, the people of the world, are greatly thankful for our beloved country of the world, the united states.

at the same time,

Iran is our land, Iran is our culture, Iran is our manners, Iran is in our blood.
when i look at our past of last more than one thousand years, i found that, whenever we were in trouble Iran always came to help us.
whenever we were with tears, Iran was standing by us sharing our tears.
whenever naked swords came near us to cut down us into pieces, we always found Iran busy safegaurding us.
whenever we were in trouble, Iran was always there to protect us.
Iran has safegaurded us like our beloved mother.
How can i forget all that ???
How can ??
I simply can not.

if, you dont believe me then ask those arminian christians, when they were under the glittering edge of naked swords, even when then united states could not protect them, but Iran was there protecting them, safagaurding them, sheltering them, sharing their grieves and miseries.
Ask Jews, who tried to protect them from west as possible.

Iran is a country that never attacked any country for last five hundred years at least.
it will be a great..great..great injustice that united sates bombs iran.

i love united states as same as i love iran. i want to see both, progressing, shining in the world side by side.

we are human beings.
we have relations.
we can communicate to each other.

we do not have relations what lions have with zebras.
lions can not communicate with zebras.

but, we, the human beings, can.

if, we have to follow animals,
then why God has given us the ability of reading, writing and communication ???
we have language, it means we have to follow different laws from animals.

we can communicate, debate and discuss things to avoide problems.

Mofaz!
where are you?
Is that you??

you told Yediot that: "If Iran continues its nuclear weapons program, we will attack it."

How shocking!!!
How sad!!!

is that really you?

Mr.Shaul Mofaz!
You claim that 'israel' is your 3000 years old motherland?? don't you??
But do you remember that Iran was your very recent motherland just few years ago???
and, Now you talk about destruction of that motherland ???
you have forgotten that it was Iran, your very recent motherland, that provided you shelter and protected you and your family when there was no one in the whole world to protect you.
Your claim about your affection of 3000 years old motherland???
while, you are ready to destroy your very recent motherland??

can you do this??
can you destroy land of your own childhood with your own hands??
can you Mofaz???

please keep politics in your hand, but, do not die while swiming into pool of politics.

CHECK!

THAT IS ALL!!

Trader!

cant you keep your mouth close for a while ???
you know?

last night my son-in-law suddenly woke up. he was crying..."uncle trader's teeth...uncle trader's teeth."

whenever you talk .. you talk with teeth.
why you do this ???
he took five minutes to quit.

Not only you threaten others with your teeth but you invite others too to follow your tactics ???
why you do this ???
why you throw stones and rocks in the river of peace to block the flow of lives???

you are 'mindful' but, you show teeth.
and even, you do not know the impact of showing teeth.
you call it 'knowledge'.

while, some one had told you that threats are for weak.
but still you show teeth.

you even didn't take notice that children fear your 'show teeth'.
but, in your theory, not children, but weak are fearful.

Yet, you are selling your theory at each corner of united states.
and, you get orders at home too.

but, there are different opinions.

and, what was that..."cubic" ???
cubic...metres...of ... gas...???
so, this is your point ???

you are 'mindful' but, you show teeth.
and even, you do not know the impact of showing teeth.
you call it 'knowledge'.

There is a dichotomy dialect in knowledge ignorance; there is biddable ignorance, and willful ignorance, the former, at worst, is ill informed or rightfully and thoughtfully opinionated, while, the latter, is willfully ill informing and deceptively so, at best. Afact well know among many here and elsewhere on nutroot.

while, some one had told you that threats are for weak.
but still you show teeth.

Sorry, no sale, no one told me, no had to.

However, I am sympathetically to why you use the term “TOLD.” Old indoctrinated habits are hard to let go of, when they’re understand by from a lifetime of being told what is, and is not.

you even didn't take notice that children fear your 'show teeth'.
but, in your theory, not children, but weak are fearful.

Are you a child, do you know of a child here. I know of one, which I ignore. So, no sale Chris Cringle.[/color

Yet, you are selling your theory at each corner of united states.
and, you get orders at home too.

[color=blue]I am not selling anything, I am dissenting in opposition to what is being “sold as indoctrination.”

Home orders, you say, though nothing remotely as predispose as your hyperbole of distortion ofconfusion, but it truth, in human way, the better half is a real taskmaster at times. Even so, I win a few, occasionally.

but, there are different opinions.

Yes, differing fact based opinions are the lifeblood of human knowledge. Nevertheless, unsubstantiated fact less opinion of the unproven indoctrination kind can be fatal in its support for the false, that foundation built on fallacious grounds that can be, and should be, crumbled in earth quaking rebukes, especially today, in our world of indoctrinated demigods and propagandists.


and, what was that..."cubic" ???
cubic...metres...of ... gas...???

Look carefully at the image I provided. Your answer was right before your eyes.

so, this is your point ???

Indoctrinated Demagoguery was and is the point.

See this is pseudo-strength in your part of the alter reality, but in reality, if it were truly strength one would not need to chest thump it and publish it, all would know, it, as a capable fact, of truth.

Iran 'to target Israel, US bases'

Iran will target "the heart of Israel" and 32 US bases in the Gulf if they launch an attack on Iran, an Iranian official has warned.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7399403.stm

Then there is the theocratic authoritarian hypocrisy and its crimes against Islam and humanity.

West seizes £800m-worth of drugs from Iranian ports

Tehran strenuously denies involvement in narcotics smuggling, widely claimed to be a crucial source of income for the Taliban

By Kim Sengupta
Sunday, 13 July 2008

Worsening tension between Iran and the West has been given a new twist by the revelation that the Royal Navy and allied forces have intercepted smuggled narcotics worth more than £800m coming out of Iranian ports. Much of the money, it is claimed, helps to fund the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Although raids on drugs-carrying dhows have been going on for several months near the sensitive Straits of Hormuz, at the mouth of the Gulf, they have only now been made public. According to military sources, the dhows carrying the narcotics are loaded in a number of small Iranian ports, but Tehran strenuously denies being involved in the illicit trade. It says any Western allegation of a link to trafficking is propaganda, partly aimed at justifying its large-scale naval presence in the area.

The accusations come amid growing fears of an attack on Iran by the US or Israel to halt Tehran's alleged attempts to develop nuclear weapons, and threats of retaliation by the Iranians. In the wake of an Israeli military exercise designed to show its ability to carry out a long-range strike on Iran, the Iranians responded with a series of missile test launches.

Yesterday Iranian government spokesmen kept up the threatening rhetoric, with a senior official, Mojtaba Zolnour, saying: "The US knows full well that with the smallest move against Iran, Israel and 32 US military bases in the region would not be out of the reach of our missiles, and would be destroyed." The cleric represents the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in Iran's Revolutionary Guard, which was responsible for the missile tests.

The Gulf, the highway for 40 per cent of the world's traded oil, has been specifically threatened, sending crude prices to record highs. Last week, a senior aide to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declared that US and Israeli ships would be "burned" in the Gulf if any attack took place. But the sea route is also known for drug smuggling.

Although hashish forms most of the illicit trade in the Gulf, increasing quantities of heroin are also being intercepted, along with occasional seizures of cocaine and amphetamines. Afghanistan is responsible for 93 per cent of the world's supply of heroin, half of which is smuggled out through Iran.
British warships – the frigates HMS Chatham and HMS Montrose, the destroyer HMS Edinburgh and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Argus – intercepted 23 tons of narcotics, out of a total of 70 tons recovered by US and other coalition forces. Officials said this represented a significant increase in smuggling through the Straits of Hormuz.

The commander of the Royal Navy in the Gulf, Commodore Keith Winstanley, said in Bahrain: "The scourge of illegal drugs is one of the gravest threats to the long-term security of Afghanistan, and a vital source of funding for the Taliban warlords who seek violence against Afghan, British and Nato forces.
"By seizing these drugs we have dealt a significant blow to the illegal trade. News of these successes has been kept quiet for operational reasons, but I am delighted that the tremendous efforts can now be realised."

Western powers have long claimed that the Straits of Hormuz are used by terrorist groups for running drugs. One of the first seizures took place five years ago when the destroyer USS Decatur captured a dhow carrying £5m-worth of hashish.

Iran has a growing drugs problem, and hundreds of Iranian border guards have been killed in shootouts with smugglers at the Afghan border.
But US and British officials say the Iranians have armed both Sunni and Shia insurgents in Iraq. Iran also has strong ties to its fellow Shias in Afghanistan, but has been accused nonetheless of supplying weapons to the Taliban, a charge it strongly denies.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/mi...rts-866502.html



That is all!!

have you noticed one thing trader ???
have you noticed that in all of your above mentioned long long comments with so many arguments and logics, that you deem fit to post, you never said: "i never show teeth" ???
why ???
you talk here and there, but you never outrightly denied that you never show teeth ???
what is this ???
some internal factors ...?

dont you think that your intention with this behaviour, comes under objection ???
although you accept 'difference of opinion',
but, you never consider difference of opinion...,
what is this ??
a normal attitude of your 'home grown democracy' ???
you talk freedom but you never value other's opinions...??
you decide based solely on your own opinion, but claim democracy ???
"one way march" is your democracy ???

i advise you to please consider other's opinions too.
however, i know for sure that you will find 'bacteria' in my humble advice, based on your previous attitude.

have you noticed one thing trader ???

Why Mc-Moody, I have noticed many things, have you?

have you noticed that in all of your above mentioned long long comments with so many arguments and logics, that you deem fit to post, you never said: "i never show teeth" ???

You sure about that?

why ??? Because.

you talk here and there, but you never outrightly denied that you never show teeth ???
what is this ???

Now hold on Mc-Moody, here comes a legal term that might tail spin you. ASKED AND ANSWERED.

some internal factors ...?

dont you think that your intention with this behaviour, comes under objection ??? YES

although you accept 'difference of opinion',

YES and I explained how differentiating opinions can be and should be dealt with. Gota read the stuff, before you whine in false victimization about it Mc-Moody.

but, you never consider difference of opinion...,

Not true, my objection and the proof I provide regularly debunking and resisting the falsities in unsubtaniated opinions is evidentiary proof I consider the differences in opinions and use facts to rebuke them as best i can, but you knew that didn’t you Mc-Mood.

what is this ??

What is what, my objection to one sided negative unsubtainated opinion or rebukable bias reporting, or the fact that I object at all. I mean you did give me the atypical Doom-irk, and Mc-moody response, telling me to shut up, hey, comrade, left coaster.

a normal attitude of your 'home grown democracy' ???

What is normal, and what is home grown democracy, left coaster, I am sure you don’t distinguish a difference. but you might want to try them, you may grow to like them.

you talk freedom but you never value other's opinions...??

OOPS, look you got to be quicker and think more on your feet Mc-Mood, again ASKED and ANSWERED. BUT, once again, DISSENT IS FREEDOM, someday you will likely as not learn that??

you decide based solely on your own opinion, but claim democracy ??? ASKED and ANSWERED. Sustained.

"one way march" is your democracy ??? ASK differently buy ANSWERED the same. Sustained.

i advise you to please consider other's opinions too. Thanks for THE advisory, but you have already asked this same question several times Mc-Mood, and I have already, many times answered it. You just don't get it.

however, i know for sure that you will find 'bacteria' in my humble advice, based on your previous attitude.


No I find no bacteria in thoughts, as that is your alter reality that does not exists. I also do not find your pretense as the helpless peace loving victim, and not the enabling instigator of hidden disdain and hate, creditable, veracious and non-livid, as you play the Victim card of deception and deceit from the smog-choked perniciousness of that left coast mentality.

That is all!!

Iran is a culture.
Iran is a manner.
Iran is one society.
Iran is a country with contineous civilization spreading over four thousand years.

Iran is a land of Christians.
Iran is a land of Jews.
Iran is a land of Parsis.
Iran is a land of budhists.
Iran is a land of Muslims.

Iran was there, when there was no Islam,
Iran was there, when there was no Christianity,
Iran was there, when there was no judaism.

Iran has a powerfull nationalism beyond religions and today's pity and cheap politics.
Iran is a behaviour, that has roots so deep that no one can remove it from the soil.

Iran is an authoritarian based dictated passive revolutionary culture.

Iran is postured ego and superego, raped, by the enigma of mythology and oppression of authoritarianism.

Iran is a one sided, 6th century run, theocratic society, dreaming it is may be a “20th century” developed country.

Iran is a dictated kingdom, not a nation, of and by the people, with leadership devoted to incessant war like evolution, spread over four thousand years of efforts to rule the world.

Iran is a land of Christians, with lesser rights of individualism and death by conversion

A draft Iranian law would mandate the death penalty for apostasy By Anuj Chopra Posted May 8, 2008

Iran is a land of Jews with far lesser rights.

Iran: Jews, Christians Must Wear Badges, like the Nazis required of them

Iran is a land of few parsis.

The very few remaining Parisis, have endured untold hardships due to religious persecution under the dictatorship of the shahs and the religious tyranny unleashed by the fanatics of Iran’s zealot Theocrats.

Iran is a land of Buddhists, brought in conquest to Iran, nearly extinguished in conquest, with a few and far in between existing in this modern Theocratic anti-apostate Iran today.

Iran is a land always dictated to by a few authoritarians and or similarly a few theocratic radical Muslims.

Iran was there, destroyed, and there, again, when there was no Islam, yet, Iran was conquered by a divisive cult of Islam.

Iran was there, when there was no Christianity and with help of god, defeated in its many wars of conquest by the Greeks, the Mongols, and many others, before Christianity.

Iran was there, but, not any more so there, before there was Judaism.

Iran has a nationalism of faux power, dictated in mythical fallacy by an elitist dictatorship of theocrats steeped in mythical superstitions of flase greatest that they will never achieve until free from despotism reign. Dictated to by a theocratic petty ambition of authoritarian politics on the verge of destroying, a noble and honorable people, merely for the shake of myths, and self flagellating ambition.

Iran’s behavior, rooted in a deep theocratic mythology perpetuated in beliefs of self destruction, which in the prophetic desires of a few radicals leaders, may soon run deep in the stains of miscalculations that may not be removed from these folly’s of misjudgment from Iran’s soil, for millenniums to come.

Iran may be on the verge of being no more, unless wiser heads prevail, over these false prophets of authoritarian theocrats bred in the myistics of 12th Imam self destruction.

It is time once again time for the people of Persia to rise up and be lead by the modern day "Kaveh the Blacksmith" کاوه آهنگر overthrowing the current incarnation of despotism in Iran, this modern day Theocracy of "Zahhak, "ضحاک which is drawing Iran nearer to its destruction every day.



THAT IS ALL!!

Let’s compare the theocracy of Iran and govts of USA wef: 1979 to 2008:

Theocracy of Iran said: “do not create mujahidins in Afghanistan, because it will harm long term peace in the region and the world.”
USA govt said: “we will create mujahidins.”

Theocracy of Iran said: “we will never attack any country.”
USA govt said: “Go ahead Saddam! Attack Iran.”

Theocracy of Iran said: “saddam is a terrorist.”
USA govt said: “saddam is our ally.”

Theocracy of Iran said: “we will not use chemical weapons.”
USA govt said: “Go ahead Saddam! This is chemical weapon. Use it against Iranians and Kurds.”

Theocracy of Iran said: “do not create and support talibans and al-qaeda. It will harm world peace very badly.”
USA govt said: “we will create and support talibans and al-qaeda, because this is in our national interests.”

Theocracy of Iran said: “war on terror is right but USA should not directly engage in invasions with army, because it will damage American interests in the world.”
USA govt said: “we will bomb and invade every country of our choice.”

Theocracy of Iran said: “please do not mix politics into oil. Because it will create price hike.”
USA govt said: “we will mix it.”

So my dear! This is the record of last 30 years.

I ask you that whose policies have been better and positive even for the people of United States.
I am hundred percent sure that the policies of Theocratic govt of Iran has been much much better than the policies of USA govt.

Theocratic govt of Iran does not make polices based on sentiments, revenge or in reaction.

Let’s compare the theocracy of Iran and govts of USA wef: 1979 to 2008:

Theocracy of Iran said: “do not create mujahidins in Afghanistan, because it will harm long term peace in the region and the world.”




It is actually “Mujahideen or, as some prefer Mojahideen,” my fake Islamists of Cally-forked-yahooism.

Hmm? I wonder why? Afghanistan’s “SUNNI Mujahideen,” and perhaps this Sunni conflict with the soviets was another threat faced by the theocratic dictators concurrently to the 1979 Iranian Revolution and its ever since instability and uncertainty, the Iran-Iraq War which they should have won overwhlmingly but lost in a tie at best. Nope, it had to be the US causing a lack of peace in the region, not these barbarous dictator’s, pretending to be the lower cast, Shiite Islamists.

It could not have been that in 1979 this faux Islamists Theocracy of Iran, committed an act of war when it broke international law, and attacked the US Embassy and took its staff hostage.

It could not have been that many Soviet Muslims in Central Asia had tribal kinship relationships in both Iran and Afghanistan. Thus, making the Soviets a natural enemy to a terrorizing false Islamic Revolution, that failed, and continues to fail. Nor, could it have been, the reason the Soviets choose of all places, to occupy the Iran bordered west of Afghanistan, within that 20% of Afghanistan, it choose to occupy. Doing so, to counter the zealots of the Iranian Theocracy’s influence who were in ndefactos wars with the US and Iraq at about the same time frame.

It could not have been because Herat and its, Jamiat-e Islami and their Iranian lackey warlord, Ismail Khan, that Persian-speaking Herati, whowas and is an anti-Sunni zealot whose opposed both the Soviets for Iran, the “SUNNI Mujahideen” and the Sunni Taliban from the his epicenter of Iranian Influenced insurgency in Afghanistan. Nor the fact that somehow he has become, like the Hezbollah, a Iranian benefactor obtaining unexplainably well financed and well armed warlord armies, who act as a proxy for an incapable Iran, who must use terrorist to execute its clandestine ambitions on the road to their sure fired destruction.

It could not have been that by Iran attacking America, it was they who started it all including the US selling more than 5,000 missiles to SUNNI Saudi Arabia as counter to the prophetic zealots of Iran’s false Islam.



سازمان مجاهدين خلق ايران

The Carter and Clinton administrations, making up entirely all of Obama advisors today saw the PMOI figuring prominently as a bargaining chip in a bridge-building effort with Tehran. I think they will not be any different than Bush in this regard.


USA govt said: “we will create mujahidins.”

You need to get out of the cally-forni-minddust of hollowwood depictions.

Oops! Callyforna-dreamin.

The mujahideen were significantly financed and armed (and are alleged to have been trained) by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the Carter[2] and Reagan administrations and the governments of Saudi Arabia, the People's Republic of China, several Western European countries, Iran, and Zia-ul-Haq's military regime in Pakistan. The Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was the interagent used in the majority of these activities to disguise the sources of support for the resistance.

Theocracy of Iran said: “we will never attack any country.”

Because they know they are so weak and unpopularly unstable politically would lose if they did. Their weakness internally does not translate into they do not want to, instead, via thgeir weakness and incapability’s, they use proxies terrorists like Hamas and Hezbollah and Shiite Afghani to fight a terrorist proxy war for them.

USA govt said: “Go ahead Saddam! Attack Iran.”
Theocracy of Iran said: “saddam is a terrorist.”
USA govt said: “saddam is our ally.”


Iranian better thank God is was the inept Iraqis and Saddam who fought the false prophets of lower casts Shiites who had a vastly superior population and far more advanced and numerical superior military.

Had the US not had a cowardly loser who did not understood it had every legal right by international law to attack Iran and destroy these false prophets of lower cast Islamists after they attacked the United States in 1979.

Had the US not had an Obama Clone Carter as President, these criminals would have been destroyed and a free government would have brought the people into the 20th Century. Instead of enabling and emboldening by impotency, future Islamists terrorist and taking Iran back to 6th century mystics clandestine enablers of world terror, and proxy war, terrorism, it neither has the capability to fight, as a nation of despot ruled sheep.


Theocracy of Iran said: “we will not use chemical weapons.”
USA govt said: “Go ahead Saddam! This is chemical weapon. Use it against Iranians and Kurds.”

There was never any doubt that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran. Iran reported in 2003 that Iran sustained 100,000 known victims to the use of different types of chemical agents (nerve agents, blistering agents and mixed agents), 35,000 of them were considered serious, due to suffering from long effects of chemical weapons deployed by Iraq (especially mustard gas).

In a declassified report from 1990 [DST-1620S-464-90 15 March 1990], the Defense Intelligence Agency reported that “Iran used chemical weapons late in the war, but never as extensively or successfully as Iraq.”

Israeli Military Intelligence research chief Brigadier General Yossi Kuperwasser said that “the possibility certainly exists” for Iran to supply chemical weapons to Hezbollah. This suggests that Israeli intelligence holds open the possibility either that Iran has covertly retained undeclared stocks of chemical weapons, or that such agents could be quickly [and possibly covertly] manufactured.

Truth is for both sides China as well as Russia were the near exclusive suppliers of technologies and equipment for Iraq and Iran’s chemical warfare program. With the exception thus far proven by A businessman who has been dubbed the "Dutch Chemical Ali" who was jail in the Netherlands for supplying Russian and Chinese raw material to Iraq.

The US NEVER supplied either, with such technology, nor any chemical weapons at all. Oops, more Iranian, how do you say, Bull Shiite, or is in Cally forn u kats, Farsi, Shiite Bull?

Theocracy of Iran said: “do not create and support talibans and al-qaeda. It will harm world peace very badly.”
USA govt said: “we will create and support talibans and al-qaeda, because this is in our national interests.”

The absurdity of intellect or lack thereof ,in these propaganda pf ignorance is both blatant and obvious. THE US CREATED the Taliban and Al Qeada, now that Cally forn-u indoctrination, of nut root proportions.

Theocracy of Iran said: “war on terror is right but USA should not directly engage in invasions with army, because it will damage American interests in the world.”
USA govt said: “we will bomb and invade every country of our choice.”

Huh?In English please, I understand Cally forn-u=kat, fars,i you know but this poor for even that level of intellectual intercourse?


Theocracy of Iran said: “please do not mix politics into oil. Because it will create price hike.”
USA govt said: “we will mix it.”

Hmm! 1941 Axis oil grabs, and 1973 Arab oil embargo, I fear we need hip boots gang, the Bull Shiite, or Shiite bull, is getting to flood stage now.

So my dear! This is the my propagandized saying a lot of nothing, record of last 30 years.

I ask you that whose policies have been better and positive even for the people of United States.

Positively, and again more positive.

I am hundred percent sure that the policies of Theocratic govt of Iran has been much much better than the policies of USA govt.

LOL, 100% in Iranian milk weed smoke mirroring, is but 1 one hundred thousands of 1 percent positivity, in real world reality, and thinking terms, you know. Except in that Farsi Cally-forn-a-kat-ism, where it is far less in that over hyped, over burdened, and over priced market of indoctrinated intelligent designers.

Theocratic govt of Iran does not make polices based on sentiments, revenge or in reaction.

Itinerary making them foot pedaling in pious ambition of that lower cast false prophecy, centuries of hate, decades of terrorist ambitions, and a lack of ability to do anything else, but, enable terror while thumping their chests in hairy apely licks of usurped piety of failed desires.
















That is all!!

your whole reply is based on sentiments, and solely on reactions, but faraway from facts and realities. for example: you tried to convert iranian theocracy into shia rule. while, saudi govt has been solely based on wahabi theocracy since 60 years, but nor you neither any one else ever criticised theocracy of saudi arabia before 1979, why ???

even today, theocracy of saudi arabia is acceptable to all of them, who at the same time criticize on theocracy in iran, why ???

it means, theocracy is not a problem, but problem is any where some thing different. isn't it the case ???

you complain that iran executes hangings. but you forget one thing that those, who are executed, are nothing but criminals, smuglers, terrorists and murderers. you showpiece the views of those who are executed, but you ignore the views of those, who were the victims of killers and terrorists, why ??? why dont you put both views in the same line ???

have you ever found any complain from the victims of killers and murderers against the execution of killers and murderers, why???

you try to gain false sympathies by showing pictures of executions, but you never show any picture of the event when killer or murderer makes or commits a crime, why ???

do you think that people can not analyze the facts ???
of course, people can.

your whole reply is based on sentiments, and solely on reactions, but faraway from facts and realities.

Hmm? It would not seem so Muckmood.



for example: you tried to convert iranian theocracy into shia rule.

IRAN:Muslim 98% (Low cast Shi'a 89%, Sunni 9%), other (includes Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christian, and Baha'i) 2%

while, saudi govt has been solely based on wahabi theocracy since 60 years, but nor you neither any one else ever criticised theocracy of saudi arabia before 1979, why ???
even today, theocracy of saudi arabia is acceptable to all of them, who at the same time criticize on theocracy in iran, why ???

Thanks for walking into my ambush, I do appreciate your clarifying the equality of the extremes of Islam in both Shia Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia. Especially how these extremist of terror enabling lead the flocks of their weak sheep about as if they really existed in a 21st century world, but showing, clearly they exist in a evolution by ruled and controlled from 6th century cultures, religions zealotry and lower cast psychology.


it means, theocracy is not a problem, but problem is any where something different. isn't it the case ???
Perhaps from the indoctrinated zealotry of a 6th century evolution in ability to deduce and reason, but from a 21st century developed evolution, the problem is the sheep of the flocks inability tpo grow past 6th century views of themselves and the world.


you complain that iran executes hangings.
but you forget one thing that those, who are executed, are nothing but criminals, smuglers, terrorists and murderers. you showpiece the views of those who are executed, but you ignore the views of those, who were the victims of killers and terrorists, why ??? why dont you put both views in the same line ???
have you ever found any complain from the victims of killers and murderers against the execution of killers and murderers, why???

you try to gain false sympathies by showing pictures of executions, but you never show any picture of the event when killer or murderer makes or commits a crime, why ???

No complaint Muckmood, just a pure fact that upwards to 45% of the hangings are for religious crimes, such as homosexuality, drug use, especially accused Apostasy, and significantly for political and religious dissent.
Muckmood, the photos were not of petty criminals they were specifically accused newspaper editors, accused adulterous females, homosexuals and Political and religious dissenters.


do you think that people can not analyze the facts ???
of course, people can.

Why yes anyone who has evolved past this 6th century mentality you express and defend understands explicitly that the extremes of Islam is at war or in conflict with all religions of the world including their upper and lower casts, and especially in or about many countries who just happen to be mostly non-Muslim countries. They fight the Russians, the Chinese, the Thais, the Israelis, the Americans, the Canadians, the Germans, the French, the British, the Italians, the Dutch, the Afghani, the Pakistani, the Saudi, the Egyptians, the Jordanians, The non-shia Lebanese, the Iraqis, the Somali, multitudes of Africans nations, The Pilipino, The Malaysian, the Indonesian, the Australian and the Serbians plus many others not mentioned.

That is all!!

“In February 1945, following the conference with Stalin and Churchill at Yalta in the Crimea, President Roosevelt and King ibn Saud met aboard a ship docked in the Suez Canal. There, Roosevelt and King Saud concluded a secret agreement.”

So, the question is:

When you fix a “theocracy” on a land without the will of people of the land, then it is ok.

But, when Khomini does it without foreign help solely depending on the people of the land, then this is objectionable??? Very well, if this is your logic.

You, yourself, fix a theocracy and then propagate all around the world against theocracy.

In 1930s and 1940s, it was completely in your hands to fix a democratic govt on your own newly created countries in the middle east. But, you did not do it. It was very easy then, to find out another “Mustapa Kamal Pasha” for Arabia, but, you intentionally avoided it.

I don’t know about your actual “plans”.
Nor, I am sure about the success of your “plans”
Or “plans” failed miserably.

But what I am sure is that you are the only one who fixed theocracy for the first time after the defeat of Othmanis in the land of middle east in the shape of Saud.

Now, face the music.

When you blame theocracy, blame yourself too.

Now, face the music.

When you blame theocracy, blame yourself too.

Nope, First, unlike you, I do not sing off key 6th century mythical lullaby’s. Second, I will let you defenders of low cast who are most expert as blaming all, but themselves, for their misery and poor performance for centuries as nations, peoples, and religions.

You are obviously not an educated person about the apostasy you defend so poorly and so ill informed as to facts and evidence. But, then again, that has been obvious from the beginning.

The dynasty of Saud has long existed before this ignorance of this utterance you contrived in ill-informed facts about the subject in 1945.
1860s the centuries old House of Saud was forced out of power by the house of Rashidi and its Ottoman alliance. The Rashidi occupied the Saudi capital of Riyadh in 1865 and forced the leaders of the House of Saud into exile in Kuwait. Roosevelt was not even born.

The King of Saudi Arabia, ABDUL AZIZ IBN ABDUR RAHMAN AL FAISAL AL SAUD, of whom you so ignorantly imply, was “made by Roosevelt and the Americans, in some fallacy fantasy of 6th century mindset you posses, was the king far before that, in fact in January 15, 1902. The Ottoman Empire ousted again him on June 15, 1904.

It was, like in Iraq and afghanistan, a European, British foot print, you mistakenly state was imprinted on sands of Arabia, not an American one. In fact, in December 1915 ( "Treaty of Darin") made the lands of the House of Saud a British protectorate. In exchange for an alliance against the Ottoman Empire and the House of Saud’s, Arabic rivals, backed by the Ottoman Empire.

As to America involvement, it was near to nothing, until Oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia in 1938, and Ibn Saud, through his adviser St. John Philby, a British Intelligence Operative, granted substantial authority over Saudi oil fields to American oil companies.
The misinformed utterances you provided in confusion was about a Jewish State not about the creation of Saudi Arabia as stated below.
Letter From President Roosevelt to King Ibn Saud, April 5, 1945

GREAT AND GOOD FRIEND:

I have received the communication which Your Majesty sent me under date of March 10, 1945, in which you refer to the question of Palestine and to the continuing interest of the Arabs in current developments affecting that country.

I am gratified that Your Majesty took this occasion to bring your views on this question to my attention and I have given the most careful attention to the statements which you make in your letter. I am also mindful of the memorable conversation which we had not so long ago and in the course of which I had an opportunity to obtain so vivid an impression of Your Majesty's sentiments on this question.

Your Majesty will recall that on previous occasions I communicated to you the attitude of the American Government toward Palestine and made clear our desire that no decision be taken with respect to the basic situation in that country without full consultation with both Arabs and Jews. Your Majesty will also doubtless recall that during our recent conversation I assured you that I would take no action, in my capacity as Chief of the Executive Branch of this Government, which might prove hostile to the Arab people.

It gives me pleasure to renew to Your Majesty the assurances which you have previously received regarding the attitude of my Government and my own, as Chief Executive, with regard to the question of Palestine and to inform you that the policy of this Government in this respect is unchanged.

I desire also at this time to send you my best wishes for Your Majesty's continued good health and for the welfare of your people.

Your Good Friend,
FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT

His Majesty
ABDUL AZIZ IBN ABDUR RAHMAN AL FAISAL AL SAUD
King of Saudi Arabia
Riyadh
(1) Department of State Bulletin of October 21, 1945, p. 623.

At a February 1939 meeting in London with Ben-Gurion and Weizman, Philby offered substantial Jewish immigration to Palestine if they would support Ibn Saud's son and eventual successor, Faisal, as King of Palestine. Months later, accompanied by Saudi foreign affairs official Fuad Bey Hamza, Philby proposed to Weizmann and Moshe Shertok (later Sharett) that they pay Ibn Saud £20 million to be used to resettle Palestinian Arabs. Weizman said he would discuss the plan with President Roosevelt. Kim Philby also was present at this meeting.



Activists: 9 Iranians Convicted of Adultery Set to Be Stoned to Death

Sunday, July 20, 2008

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,386789,00.html





That is all!!

Just Look!
How vigorously you are protecting theocracy.
Have you ever found execution photos of two hundred lashes, hangings or etc. in saudi arabia on bbc or cnn??
Never! but you are very quick to publish execution photos from Iran.

Yes! it happens when a table sees two individuals debating. on one side me "an uneducated, Low class individual" while on the other side you "highly educated and advanced" individual. It happens.

and, do not confuse people about "house of saud" in 1860s. it was just a tribe like many others. this is a tradition there. they live a tribal life. of course, they have influence where they live. but, there was no kingdom of saud until churchil and Roosevelt era.

are you trying to tell that those, who defeated "Othmanis" were unable to even touch the "house of saud" ???
Is that it ???
Really ???

Just Look!


How vigorously you are protecting theocracy.

Have you ever found execution photos of two hundred lashes, hangings or etc. in saudi arabia on bbc or cnn??

Never! but you are very quick to publish execution photos from Iran.

Yes! it happens when a table sees two individuals debating. on one side me "an uneducated, Low class individual" while on the other side you "highly educated and advanced" individual. It happens.

Inference, the act of humans drawing an accurate or inaccurate conclusion based on their orientation, and especially their abilities.

Shiiite's happens.



and, do not confuse people about "house of saud" in 1860s. it was just a tribe like many others. this is a tradition there. they live a tribal life. of course, they have influence where they live. but, there was no kingdom of saud until churchil and Roosevelt era.

Only because, my propaganda filled friend, yet uneducated in fact and or even reality, the “Othmanis” took the kingdom by force. Then again, had you been capable or adaptable enough to read what I posted, you would have known that.

are you trying to tell that those, who defeated "Othmanis" were unable to even touch the "house of saud" ???

NO, try reading, it is a wonderful thing you know, the house of Saud choice the winning side to ally with.

Is that it ???


Really ???



That is all!!

“It is also forbidden to praising them (mushriks) and their civilization and culture, defending them, and admiring their behaviour and skills, without taking note of their false ideology and corrupt religion.” (govt supported wahabi Saudi Aalim Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid says)

Note: according to saudi wahabi islam, all sunnis, shias, christians, and jews are mushriks.

please give one instance in which wahabi saudi govt ever praised United States and its culture and civilization and admired United State's progress.

while, i can give you numerious examples in which Iranian govt including religious leaders have praised united states in various ways.

if, you mention "marg bar america", you should aslo mention the other way. you should be justified.

have you forgotten two million iranians march in the protest of 911 event, in which govt officials and religious leaders from govt also participated.

where was the protest from your beloved wahabi theocratic govt of saudi arabia on such scale with participation of saudi wahabi officials.

i always found "you" praising saudi arabia, but never found your friend saudi arabia praising your culture and progress and participating in your tests.

why you do this ???

why you always trust evils???
is this your weakness???

it was you who once trusted ben laden,
it was you who once trusted al-qaeda,
it was you who once trusted mujahidin,
it was you who once trusted talibans,

and,

it is you who now want to eliminate them all.

the question is:

why you create, fix and protect them on the first place ???

if, you plant evil, how can you produce sweet fruits ??
how can ??
is it difficult to understand ???

very very sad.

Mushrik' (Polytheists) or 'Kaafirs' (Rejecters)?

Al-Baqarah 2: 105, Aal Imraan 3: 67, Surah Al-Taubah 9: 1 – 33, Al-Bayyinah 98: 1).

O yes, the lower cast upper cast wangers of distinction where there is no distinction.

From: pakistan786aa
http://www.youtube.com/v/_P5Sa2v1rRU&hl=en&fs=1





THAT IS ALL!

some beautiful sayings of the Jesus:
in a hope, that it may enlight men, even only one:

"Blessed are you who are weeping. You will be laughing."

"If someone wrongs you seven times in a day and comes back to you seven times saying, "I am sorry", you must forgive."

"No one lights a lamp and then puts it in a cellar or under a bushel. It goes on a stand so that those who come in may see the light."

"Ask and it will be given. Seek and you will find. Knock and it will be opened for you."

"Someone who is not against you is on your side."

A man said to Jesus, "Tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me." Jesus said to him, "Man, who made me a divider?"

Sallam Alaykem wa Rahmet Allah wa Barakato

• When two persons are together, two of them must no whisper to each other, without letting the third hear; because it would hurt him.

• If you do not feel ashamed of anything, then you can do whatever you like.

• What actions are most excellent? To gladden the heart of human beings, to feed the hungry, to help the afflicted, to lighten the sorrow of the sorrowful, and to remove the sufferings of the injured.

The powerful one is not he who overpowers somebody, but the powerful one is he who restrains himself when angry.
Anger subverts religious feeling as bitter substances spoil honey.

Abu Dawud]

Whoever possesses these three qualities will receive the compassion of Allah and is made worthy of His love: to be thankful for all that the Lord gives; to forgive instead of punishing when one is wronged; to be able to restrain oneself from expressing one's anger and hurting people.

[Hakim]

A wise man is not wise until he acts upon what he knows.

[Bayhaqi]

The best of you are those who are slow to anger and swift to cool down. Beware of anger, for it is a live coal on the heart of the descendents of Adam.

[Tirmidhi]

The one who realizes that he is wrong in his opinions, and does not get into an argument, has won a place at the edges of Paradise. The one who knows he is right and does not argue has won a place at the center of Paradise.

[Tirmidhi]

If provoked to anger while standing up, one must sit down; if anger is not turned away, one must lie down.

THAT IS ALL!!

We are human beings.
We share respect.
How can I be respectful, if someone else is not?

In my view,
no muslim can be a muslim until he/she is not a Christian and Jew also.

If, you subtract Christianity and Judaism from Islam,
Then, there may be a religion,
However, you cannot call it Islam.

Islam is not Islam without Christianity and Judaism.

BELIEF in GOD needs no religion, that bastardization of Gods will and intent, destroyed in the images of men’s morality or immorality, not Gods. God belief needs but an open mind, a willing and clean heart, and moral being to see man ability for mortal fallacy and his capability to use God’s gift of wisdom to know what is right and do it, and to reject, what is wrong or done wrong, and repulse it.


THAT IS ALL!!

When I said:
When you blame theocracy, blame yourself too.”

Then you replied:
“First, unlike you, I do not sing off key 6th century mythical lullaby’s. Second, I will let you defenders of low cast who are most expert as blaming all, but themselves, for their misery and poor performance for centuries as nations, peoples, and religions.”

When I said: “who fixed Saudis?”
You replied: “Britain, not USA.”

But, you failed to provide any single instance that then USA govt placed an objection before Britain for fixing a theocracy in arabia.

You further wrote: “the house of Saud choice the winning side to ally with.”

So, the question still exists:

why you always trust evils???
Or, in other words:
Why evils always find shelter under your umbrella?
Or,
Why you always ally with evils??

Whether, this is saddam,
Whether, this is qaeda,
Whether, this is laden,
Whether, this is mujahidins,
Whether, this is sauds,
Whether, this is shah.

A good ideology and positive hope can take side with evils, even temporarily ???

For example:
If, a criminal is running away in a car to another state. And, if, I take a ride and police takes me under custody and involves me with criminal, then???

For example:
If, a smuggler gives me a car to help me in my travel from one state to another, and puts some narcotics in car without my knowledge, and I am arrested downtown, then ???

Am I innocent in US law ???
Is it allowed in US laws to acquire assistance from criminals and terrorists???

Suppose, ben laden comes and proposes an alliance with US govt for certain objectives, then ???

Would you entertain laden’s proposal?
Would you honor him medal of honor, then ???
Would you then treat 911 event as null and void ???

Is this your sheep treatment ???
Is this politics of hope, but for whom? evils ???

In my view, interpretation of national interests in a manner, while taking evils as allies, is not a good idea.

You know, who started “preemptive defense of state” for the first time in history of humankind ???

Pharaohs.

They had killed thousands of babies and mothers to protect a birth, that was supposed to destroy their kingdom.

Temporary marriages with kingdoms of such mentality, is allowed in USA ???

How can noble people call evils as angels even for the shortest period of time ??

You claim that that God exists, while you sit in a crowd of evils in a hope that you are about to receive some benefits from your evil surroundings ?

Benefits from evils ???

But, in my view, you can never get single benefit from evils, no matter how strongly you hope.

The net of benefits will lead you nowhere, and you will lose your way.

When I said:
When you blame theocracy, blame yourself too.”

Then you replied:
“First, unlike you, I do not sing off key 6th century mythical lullaby’s. Second, I will let you defenders of low cast who are most expert as blaming all, but themselves, for their misery and poor performance for centuries as nations, peoples, and religions.”

You seem to have a problem with rebukes that are factually correct. Maybe some more cool aid from fountain of despot adulteries from which you drink so much and so often will enlighten even less than you have enlighten us.

When I said: “who fixed Saudis?”
You replied: “Britain, not USA.”

FACTUALLY CORRECT

But, you failed to provide any single instance that then USA govt placed an objection before Britain for fixing a theocracy in arabia.

Mockmood, you need to read. You can read can’t you.

You seem ignorant of the process of debate. When a lower cast propagandists such as yourself lays forth a statement as if fact, as you did, on this topic, and another rebukes those statements, with facts, proving them, even superficially, unattainable, and thus wrong. It is the responsibility of the original misinformed propagandist to read the evidence presented and rebuke it if they can.

I am not here to educate you and or get you caught up with 15 centuries of human history and evolution you have missed you know.

You further wrote: “the house of Saud choice the winning side to ally with.”

TRUE, Muckmood, sorry to burst all these mystical myths in the land of mythical people, but that is the way of life, it requires reality thinking, not despot indoctrinated thinking.


So, the question still exists:

why you always trust evils???
Or, in other words:
Why evils always find shelter under your umbrella?
Or,
Why you always ally with evils??

Whether, this is saddam,
Whether, this is qaeda,
Whether, this is laden,
Whether, this is mujahidins,
Whether, this is sauds,
Whether, this is shah.

A good ideology and positive hope can take side with evils, even temporarily ???

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, that is what the world's winners understand, and those that do not, are most often the world's losers in the end. As to evil, it is a subjective evolution of ones Opinion, which happenes to be like a Aholes, everyone got one, but having one gives no credence to the veracity and purity of either you know.

For example:
If, a criminal is running away in a car to another state. And, if, I take a ride and police takes me under custody and involves me with criminal, then???
For example:
If, a smuggler gives me a car to help me in my travel from one state to another, and puts some narcotics in car without my knowledge, and I am arrested downtown, then ???


What, of course you are but the innocent victim, as if in the victim blame anyone but us game you play. Are you even out of grammar school yet, Muckmood?

Am I innocent in US law ???
Is it allowed in US laws to acquire assistance from criminals and terrorists???

No, but then again the US is a 21st century country free of religous zealot leaders and their enforcement Qud’s force hit squads. But under Iranian despot theocracy and other regional theocratic terrorists laws, you promote as if victims.

Within these cirumstance you victim poorly, you would be a 6th century lower cast economic hero and martyr for the cause, and likely your home block's religious police commando, hunting down other religions, apostates, sex criminals and or homosexuals to be hung in the public square for being not as godly as you and these poor victim religous theocrats.

Isn’t that right Muckmood?

[s]Suppose, ben laden comes and proposes an alliance with US govt for certain objectives, then ???

Would you entertain laden’s proposal?
Would you honor him medal of honor, then ???
Would you then treat 911 event as null and void ???

Is this your sheep treatment ???
Is this politics of hope, but for whom? evils ???[/size]
[size=1]

In my view, interpretation of national interests in a manner, while taking evils as allies, is not a good idea.

You know, who started “preempt

When I said:
When you blame theocracy, blame yourself too.”

Then you replied:
“First, unlike you, I do not sing off key 6th century mythical lullaby’s. Second, I will let you defenders of low cast who are most expert as blaming all, but themselves, for their misery and poor performance for centuries as nations, peoples, and religions.”

You seem to have a problem with rebukes that are factually correct. Maybe some more cool aid from fountain of despot adulteries from which you drink so much and so often will enlighten even less than you have enlighten us.

When I said: “who fixed Saudis?”
You replied: “Britain, not USA.”

FACTUALLY CORRECT

But, you failed to provide any single instance that then USA govt placed an objection before Britain for fixing a theocracy in arabia.

Mockmood, you need to read. You can read can’t you.

You seem ignorant of the process of debate. When a lower cast propagandists such as yourself lays forth a statement as if fact, as you did, on this topic, and another rebukes those statements, with facts, proving them, even superficially, unattainable, and thus wrong. It is the responsibility of the original misinformed propagandist to read the evidence presented and rebuke it if they can.

I am not here to educate you and or get you caught up with 15 centuries of human history and evolution you have missed you know.

You further wrote: “the house of Saud choice the winning side to ally with.”

TRUE, Muckmood, sorry to burst all these mystical myths in the land of mythical people, but that is the way of life, it requires reality thinking, not despot indoctrinated thinking.


So, the question still exists:

why you always trust evils???
Or, in other words:
Why evils always find shelter under your umbrella?
Or,
Why you always ally with evils??

Whether, this is saddam,
Whether, this is qaeda,
Whether, this is laden,
Whether, this is mujahidins,
Whether, this is sauds,
Whether, this is shah.

A good ideology and positive hope can take side with evils, even temporarily ???

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, that is what the world's winners understand, and those that do not, are most often the world's losers in the end. As to evil, it is a subjective evolution of ones Opinion, which happenes to be like a Aholes, everyone got one, but having one gives no credence to the veracity and purity of either you know.

For example:
If, a criminal is running away in a car to another state. And, if, I take a ride and police takes me under custody and involves me with criminal, then???
For example:
If, a smuggler gives me a car to help me in my travel from one state to another, and puts some narcotics in car without my knowledge, and I am arrested downtown, then ???


What, of course you are but the innocent victim, as if in the victim blame anyone but us game you play. Are you even out of grammar school yet, Muckmood?

Am I innocent in US law ???
Is it allowed in US laws to acquire assistance from criminals and terrorists???

No, but then again the US is a 21st century country free of religous zealot leaders and their enforcement Qud’s force hit squads. But under Iranian despot theocracy and other regional theocratic terrorists laws, you promote as if victims.

Within these cirumstance you victim poorly, you would be a 6th century lower cast economic hero and martyr for the cause, and likely your home block's religious police commando, hunting down other religions, apostates, sex criminals and or homosexuals to be hung in the public square for being not as godly as you and these poor victim religous theocrats.

Isn’t that right Muckmood?

Suppose, ben laden comes and proposes an alliance with US govt for certain objectives, then ???

Would you entertain laden’s proposal?
Would you honor him medal of honor, then ???
Would you then treat 911 event as null and void ???

Is this your sheep treatment ???
Is this politics of hope, but for whom? evils ???[/size]


In my view, interpretation of national interests in a manner, while taking evils as allies, is not a good idea.

You know, who started “preemptive defense of state” for the first time in history of humankind ???

Pharaohs.

They had killed thousands of babies and mothers to protect a birth, that was supposed to destroy their kingdom.

Temporary marriages with kingdoms of such mentality, is allowed in USA ???

How can noble people call evils as angels even for the shortest period of time ??

YAWN

You claim that that God exists, while you sit in a crowd of evils in a hope that you are about to receive some benefits from your evil surroundings ?

Benefits from evils ???

But, in my view, you can never get single benefit from evils, no matter how strongly you hope.

The net of benefits will lead you nowhere, and you will lose your way.

Hmm, not the brightest bulb in the park, hey Muckmood?

my overwrought, yet to deliver an intelligible debate, poorly indoctrinating cool aid drinker, I claimed a belief in God, and a disbelief in religion. Quite the difference you know.






That is all!!

My dear ‘educated intellectual’!
My dear ‘21st century intellectual’ !
My dear anti-propagandist !
My dear b52 of knowledge !

I appreciate your guts. I think, bush is just one grade better than you. I am sorry. But, bush is the first in your lines.

My illiteracy confirms your knowledge.
My empty head points out that you are brainful.
My low light bulb gives me light of your high power lamp.
My sixth century knowledge covers you under 21st century educated intellectual.

With so much elephantal knowledge, you still drink buffalo’s milk and eat potato and walk on dust.
With huge Churchill’s head, you still believe in “Ma..ma..i am free.”
With all your ‘plate form knowledge’ you are unable to understand parallel lines.
With all ‘US National Library’ on your head, you are unable to understand another point of view.

Have you ever praised anyone else except you and your beloved king of saudi Arabia of 200 lashes, Mr. 21st Century ???

your burden of 21st century knowledge is so huge that the whole world is upside down.

My dear ‘educated intellectual’!
My dear ‘21st century intellectual’ !
My dear anti-propagandist !
My dear b52 of knowledge !


Aww shucks, dag gone, Muckmood, tee hee, you are the kat’s meow, so purring with the compliments, aren’t you?

I appreciate your guts. I think, bush is just one grade better than you. I am sorry. But, bush is the first in your lines.

I have lines? Where, I don’t see any. O, you meant I have lineage. Why yes I do, some say 10,000 years in part, and at least 5,000 in another, one or two parts. Muckmood, Do you have lines too? I mean the mirror cringing kind of lines.

My illiteracy confirms your knowledge. I think you have that reversed Muckmood.

My empty head points out that you are brainful.

“brainful” is not a word Muckmood, try another. Perhaps baneful, Painful or blameful?

My low light bulb gives me light of your high power lamp.

Again, I am sure you have that reversed, Muckmood.

Hmm. well maybe not? It is hard to say, given the way you put it, so low beamed and all.

My sixth century knowledge covers you under 21st century educated intellectual.

NO. That was the point, Muckmood, it does not.

With so much elephantal knowledge, you still drink buffalo’s milk and eat potato and walk on dust.

I have been known to prefer teat, Muckmood, but not Buffalo. I eat potato, but usually with other assortments of food, do you? I have walked on dust, rocks, grass and other terrestrial material and even on the sands of Arabia, have you, or do you walk on other non-terrestrial things Muckmood.

With huge Churchill’s head, you still believe in “Ma..ma..i am free.”

Freedom is not a belief, my 6th century lower castaway, IT IS AN ACCOMPLISHMENT. Try it! You may like it, in say another 1300 years, when the concept evolves into it being "a maybe reality" in that part of the world you victim ploy for.

With all your ‘plate form knowledge’ you are unable to understand parallel lines

Hmm, is that not two lines, usual set apart in equal distant running either parallel or perpendicular to one and the other. Then, why yes I do understand parallel lines. I also understand” Obtuse propaganda victimization angles” as well, do you?

With all ‘US National Library’ on your head, you are unable to understand another point of view.

Yes, do you have one. that is which is NOT propagandized victimization and blame gaming, as if faultless?

Have you ever praised anyone else except you and your beloved king of saudi Arabia of 200 lashes, Mr. 21st Century ???

Why yes I have often, have you?

My beloved King, O my, how they hurts me so, for you to lay this bellicosity mantle of king worship, and an Arab king worship at that, on a free man from the 21st century. O the pain!

your burden of 21st century knowledge is so huge that the whole world is upside down.

when I was two or maybe three,I recall looking at a globe and seeing Australia, and wondering, if I would be upside down when I went there.

It turned out it was merely the inexperience of a child’s lack of knowledge, that misinformed my mind. Like that which I am hearing so much from the Hollows of this 6th century wisdom, blame and victim pandering, here Muckmood. When are going get the Cally-forn-ya indoctrination out of the conversation and stop being so pandering of Victim and blame Muckmoody, Muckmood?


THAT IS ALL!!

In replying all objections, raised, you have only one answer.

Propaganda…propaganda…propaganda.

Whatever you say is:
21st century knowledge.

And whatever anyone else says is merely a propaganda in your view.

You hide behind artificial wall of propaganda because you have no proper answers.
I understand this, and who not ?

Trader! Your trade is so faulty that even your true friends will not believe you.

Actually, you are standing by a locker in a hope that it will open up unlimited treasure for you.
You don’t realize that you are standing by a barren locker.

If, someone tries to convince you then you reply: “shut up you fool”.

This is not your reply. This is the reply of your greed.
Greed, that was there in sixth century and is now in 21st century.

There is no change in answer after so many centuries.
Still the same song:
“shut up you fool.”

And then, you call it your freedom of choice.
Yes! I respect your freedom of choice but with reservations.

THAT IS ALL!!

Trader!

you praise sauds for wisely siding with winners.
Nice!

When I posted some beautiful lights of Jesus, then you didn’t write even single word of praise but, instead you started reciting other things.

Mr.Trader of US Administration! What kind of thing you are ???
Would you like to please tell that what kind of material do you have in your upper chamber ???

Trader!

you praise spoofed sauds for wisely siding with winners.

While equally spoofing Iran, its many proxy terrorist, Iraq and most of Pakistan, for siding with the Losers.

Nice! Why thank you Muckmood, I am pleased about your acknowledgments of reality for a change.

When I posted some beautiful lights of Jesus, then you didn’t write even single word of praise but, instead you started reciting other things.



Mr.Trader of US Administration! What kind of thing you are ???

Correcto-mundo, MuckMood.


Would you like to please tell that what kind of material do you have in your upper chamber ???

M25, “white feather” 7.62x51mm NATO, and you?

THAT IS ALL!!

So, britain fixed, you spoofed !!!
very very well !!!
what a coordination.

is this 21st century knowledge ???
you 'spoof' people die ????

Now, i am sur that you have nothing in your upper chamber except m25 and etc.

So, what, you are doing now, is also 'spoofed' ???

saddam 'spoofed',
shah 'spoofed',
saud 'spoofed',
taliban 'spoofed',
qaeda 'spoofed',
laden 'spoofed'

good touch of 21st century!!!

i am sure that this type of individuals have no say in the world.

hey, listen! is "+1" also spoofed ???

So, britain fixed, you spoofed !!!
very very well !!![ what a coordination.
Thank you, I knew you were well-groomed enough to discover if ever so minutely.


is this 21st century knowledge ???
you 'spoof' people die ???? O’yes that supposively" cally forn ya pungent satire," that is only pungent, I get it?

Now, i am sur that you have nothing in your upper chamber except m25 and etc.

So, what, you are doing now, is also 'spoofed' ???

saddam 'spoofed',
shah 'spoofed',
saud 'spoofed',
taliban 'spoofed',
qaeda 'spoofed',
laden 'spoofed'

good touch of 21st century!!!

i am sure that this type of individuals have no say in the world.

hey, listen! is "+1" also spoofed ???


THAT IS ALL

Iran executes 29 in jail hangings


Child made to watch this public execution of an Academic not a Criminal in Iran


Amnesty International, the human rights group, said that last year Iran carried out 317 executions, a higher total than any other country apart from China.

A statement from the Campaign for Human Rights in Iran called executions of juveniles barbaric and tragic - saying Iran now accounts for two thirds of the under age executions in the world.

Iran is a signatory to international agreements such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which outlaw juvenile executions.

One human rights group says it knows of at least 106 offenders on death row in Iran who were juveniles when they committed their crimes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7527431.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7450322.stm

THAT IS ALL!!

before peeping events seven seas away,

you should concentrate on united states jails.

united states the biggest host of prisoners on its soils.

these prisoners also have families, children and relatives.

go and interview and publish them first.

before weeping and crying on executions of killers, terrorists, rapists and smuglers in Iran.

why dont you publish the views of those, who were raped and terrorised on the first place.

dead on own soil's problems, while extremly active on thousands of miles away ???

and, you are wrong when you say that children were allowed to see the executions in Iran. this is bogus and fake propaganda.

do some positive and creative work, instead on weeping and crying on terrorists. ok?

On August 15th, 2004 a 16-year-old girl was hanged in a public square in Neka, Iran. Her death sentence was for "acts incompatible w chastity".
Her name was Atefah Rafavi . She was raped by a MALE Government official, who got 25 lashes while she was hanged, for being raped.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lFNx3n0MNM

According to Amnesty International since 1990, government of Iran has executed 21 minors under the age of 18.


At least 25 more are facing execution. please sign the petition and join our campaign to STOP CHILD EXECUTIONS once and for all.
visit: www.stopchildexecutions.com Created by Donna Greene: Greenhouse Productions Music : Raven's Eye Pt.1 by Graham Greene«

IRAN Today!

http://www.youtube.com/v/f274hyzeyYg&h...&fs=1"

http://www.youtube.com/v/yroKwXOEc7o&h...&fs=1"

http://www.youtube.com/v/g3gqcf_0njU&h...&fs=1"


Iran Mullah's Lie: Executed criminals or Political Prisoners, tried as criminals, the Mullah's know.

http://www.youtube.com/v/YSLfbuuwt8w&h...&fs=1"


IRAN IS ON THE VERGE OF REVOLUTION

http://www.youtube.com/v/k7DGtKt8lTk&h...&fs=1"

http://www.youtube.com/v/Fl5hT5O5z54&h...&fs=1"


Women in HELL

http://www.youtube.com/v/v0XPI403E-s&h...&fs=1"



That is all!!

do you have birth certificate of Atefah Rafavi ???
do you have a copy of her case file and proceedings of Atefah Rafavi ???

what is the proof of your claim???

just three minute dim clip on youtube ????

how long will you continue to behave like "wmds in iraq" ???
how long ??
people have now fed up with your repetation.

do you have birth certificate of Atefah Rafavi ???

YES, but since the Mullah's wiped all records of her, her mother buried all that information about her, with her. You could dig her up Muckmood.


do you have a copy of her case file and proceedings of Atefah Rafavi ??? YES, do you?

what is the proof of your claim??? She is dead and the Muallah killed her because she was a woman.

just three minute dim clip on youtube ???? And you have what exactly, Muckmood?

how long will you continue to behave like "wmds in iraq" ???

OOPS, try again, your doomocratic propoganda is out of date. http://www.bearpit.net/index.php?s=&sh...st&p=104612

how long ??

TILL this 6th century mindset surrenders to the reality this is not the 6th century anymore. Cause it has already lost, it is just that its few deciples, like yourself, just don't know it yet.

Is that OK?

people have now fed up with your repetation.

More flattery, awsuck Muckmood, when are you going to stop?

Do you consider yourself or me, "people,"Muckmood.


Having fun, are you?
THAT IS ALL!!

So, Mullahs have destroyed all records but before destroying such records, they never forgot to send you a copy, so that to facilitate your propaganda.

how special ???

so, you have a copy, dont you?

then, please provide case no. and date of filing and the name of prosecutor and name of Judge.
and, further inform that how many times she made appeal or she didn't appeal further after conviction.

would you please ??

No! actually, you are living in the mindset of sixth century because you talk without proof, just on presumptions and on free baseless ideas.

of course, you are free whatever you think but you cant blame others without proof. this is the law of the united states.
but, of course, elites in united states are free from the boundary of all laws.

but, i dont expect this from you.

That is all!!

A world withOUT Mullah's,. now that is the ticket. FREE IRANIANS and PAKISTANI from grips of backward thinkers, hey Muckmood?


That is all