Two peas in a pod
Count 1
DAMASCUS (AFP) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad met in Damascus with
the leaders of 10 radical Palestinian movements including Islamic Jihad and
Hamas.
Ahmadinejad said he "strongly supports the Palestinian people's struggle"
during the meeting, according to Popular Front for the Liberation of
Palestine (PFLP) official Maher Taher Friday.
Taher said the militant chiefs pledged to Ahmadinejad that the "Palestinian
resistance and struggle would continue" against Israel.
"We expressed our solidarity with Syria, which is under pressure due to
its national positions, as well as with Iran which has the right to
possess nuclear technology for peaceful purposes," he added.
Islamic Jihad chief Abdullah Ramadan Shala, Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal and
PFLP-GC leader Ahmed Jibril were among those at the meeting, Taher said.
The meeting came one day after Islamic Jihad claimed a suicide attack in Tel
Aviv that wounded 19 people. Israel blamed Tehran and Damascus for
supporting the attack.
"The attack was financed by Tehran, planned in Syria and carried out by
Palestinians," Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz was quoted as saying by
a ministry official.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad did not attend Ahmadinejad's meeting with
the Palestinian chiefs, though he and Ahmadinejad met Thursday in Damascus
as the two allies reaffirmed their ties amid increasing international
pressure.
While Iran faces possible UN sanctions over its nuclear program, Assad's
regime is also growing more isolated over its alleged involvement in former
Lebanese premier Rafiq Hariri's murder in February 2005.
Iran and Syria are both under US sanctions for their alleged sponsorship of
terrorism and quest for weapons of mass destruction. They also stand accused
of playing a spoiling role in their shared neighbor Iraq.
The ultra-conservative Iranian president has already faced international
outcry over his comments describing Israel as a "tumor" that should be
"wiped off the map."
During his first visit to sole regional ally Syria since his shock election
win in June, Ahmadinejad described Israeli Jews as "migrants" and asked if
Europeans would be willing to accommodate them.
"Give these migrants authorization to come into your countries and you will
see that they no longer want to live in occupied (Palestinian) territory,"
Ahmadinejad said during a meeting with high-ranking Syrian officials.
"Are you prepared to open the doors of your country to migrants so that they
can move freely throughout Europe? Are you going to guarantee their security
and no longer engage in anti-Semitic repression if they come into your
countries?" he asked, adding that he doubted Europeans' "sincerity."
Ahmadinejad also visited Shiite holy sites near the Syrian capital,
including the Sitt Zeinab mosque, the Sitt-Raquiya mosque and the Mosque of
Omeyyades.
Ahmadinejad and Assad were to meet later Friday before the Iranian leader
ended his two-day visit to Damascus.
kuff (Isaac Adams)
Count 1 wrote:
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060120/wl_mideast_afp/iransyriapalestinianisrael
>
> ...
>
> During his first visit to sole regional ally Syria since his shock election
> win in June, Ahmadinejad described Israeli Jews as "migrants" and asked if
> Europeans would be willing to accommodate them.
>
> "Give these migrants authorization to come into your countries and you will
> see that they no longer want to live in occupied (Palestinian) territory,"
> Ahmadinejad said during a meeting with high-ranking Syrian officials.
>
> "Are you prepared to open the doors of your country to migrants so that they
> can move freely throughout Europe? Are you going to guarantee their security
> and no longer engage in anti-Semitic repression if they come into your
> countries?" he asked, adding that he doubted Europeans' "sincerity."
>
> Ahmadinejad also visited Shiite holy sites near the Syrian capital,
> including the Sitt Zeinab mosque, the Sitt-Raquiya mosque and the Mosque of
> Omeyyades.
>
> Ahmadinejad and Assad were to meet later Friday before the Iranian leader
> ended his two-day visit to Damascus.
If Assad had been democratically elected too then they might be two
peas in a pod. For now about all one might say is they both "taste
like chicken".
Count 1
"kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137788991.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You mean Syria only loses international respect by killing foriegn political
leaders and harboring terrorists and facilitating terrorism in Iraq and not
by holding fake elections meant to fool the fuzzy minded into believing
their elections are anything more than theater?
You *must* mean that, for only a troll would bother repeating an argument
they've lost on countless occassions. :-)
For now about all one might say is they both "taste
> like chicken".
Ohh...I think there's quite a bit more 'one might say'. The two countries
well known ties to palestinian islamofascist murderers would be just one
area to explore.
kuff (Isaac Adams)
You mean "his shock election win in June"?
>
> You *must* mean that, for only a troll would bother repeating an argument
> they've lost on countless occassions. :-)
The argument boils down to you not liking the way Iran vets candidates.
I too think that process could be improved.
If Assad had been elected then they would be two peas in a pod. As it
is they're completely different pea-wise.
>
> For now about all one might say is they both "taste
> > like chicken".
>
> Ohh...I think there's quite a bit more 'one might say'. The two countries
> well known ties to palestinian islamofascist murderers would be just one
> area to explore.
You can explore that all you want. But as many animals "taste like
chicken" few animals come from the same "pod".
I'm only quibbling about the figure of speech you used in lieu of the
actual headline on the piece: "Ahmadinejad meets radical Palestinian
chiefs in Syria"
Count 1
Oh - Then you don't have a quibble. Syria and Iran - as state sponsors of
terrorism - are two peas in the same pod. The fact that neither were
elected is irrelevant.
kuff (Isaac Adams)
One was elected - the President of Iran in "his shock election win in
June".
But now you are talking about countries I see - Syria and Iran. The
greatest similitude they seem to have right now is both are being
targetted by US neocons (or warmongers if you prefer). :-)
Count 1
> One was elected - the President of Iran in "his shock election win in
> June".
Iranian elections are not democracy, they are theater. Ahmadinejad was only
slightly more 'elected' than Saddam Hussein was. Both processes were so
totally corrupted that they don't resemble anything we in the west would
call 'democracy'.
> But now you are talking about countries I see - Syria and Iran. The
> greatest similitude they seem to have right now is both are being
> targetted by US neocons (or warmongers if you prefer). :-)
Close. Both are being targetted by the international community. Syria for
its role in killing Lebanese politicians and support for terrorism; Iran for
its 18 years of lying to the UN about its nuclear program, ongoing lack of
cooperation with the international community regarding same, and support
for terrorism.
However both countries have been on the international communities radar
screen for years because of their atrocious human rights records.
The US is, logically, part of the international community raising awareness
of these two nations. No word on how many, if any, are 'neo-cons'. Not even
sure that term has any meaning beyond an empty polemic. So what if some is
newly conservative? Could just mean they're in their forties.
kuff (Isaac Adams)
Count 1 wrote:
> > One was elected - the President of Iran in "his shock election win in
> > June".
>
> Iranian elections are not democracy, they are theater.
"shock election win" demonstrates a degree of non-predictability don't
you think? Recall my postings about the campaigns of the various
candidates? It was a fairly contested election.
> Ahmadinejad was only
> slightly more 'elected' than Saddam Hussein was.
That's why he had a "shock election win"?
> Both processes were so
> totally corrupted that they don't resemble anything we in the west would
> call 'democracy'.
>
The certainly do resemble what the west calls 'democracy'.
Independent international election monitors don't seem to have any
problems with it. If you have something to back up your claims let's
see it. (Caution: It must exceed the thresholds "theatre" and
"corrupted" established by Ohio and Florida. :-) )
>
>
> > But now you are talking about countries I see - Syria and Iran. The
> > greatest similitude they seem to have right now is both are being
> > targetted by US neocons (or warmongers if you prefer). :-)
>
> Close. Both are being targetted by the international community. Syria for
> its role in killing Lebanese politicians and support for terrorism; Iran for
> its 18 years of lying to the UN about its nuclear program, ongoing lack of
> cooperation with the international community regarding same, and support
> for terrorism.
I'm aware of the speaking points coming from the US neocons to the
"international community". No need to regurgitate them here.
>
> However both countries have been on the international communities radar
> screen for years because of their atrocious human rights records.
Something you need to take up with Human Rights Watch I think.
http://hrw.org .
They ain't perfect that's for sure. But at least they're democratic.
:-)
>
> The US is, logically, part of the international community raising awareness
> of these two nations.
Why "logically"? Why these two nations specifically? The
"international community" can be excused some scepticism which comes
from noting the cherry picking of these two countries and (1) their
relationship to Israel and (2) their placement in PNAC.
> No word on how many, if any, are 'neo-cons'.
Most of them (in PNAC). Don't know how many in Human Rights Watch.
> Not even
> sure that term has any meaning beyond an empty polemic.
Sure it does. Don't try that old trick of saying the disease doesn't
exist. You've tried it before.
> So what if some is
> newly conservative? Could just mean they're in their forties.
Idiot.
Count 1
>
> Count 1 wrote:
> > > One was elected - the President of Iran in "his shock election win in
> > > June".
> >
> > Iranian elections are not democracy, they are theater.
>
> "shock election win" demonstrates a degree of non-predictability don't
> you think?
No, it demonstrates that the Mullah's already knew who would win, they just
hadn't told anyone.
Recall my postings about the campaigns of the various
> candidates? It was a fairly contested election.
LOL.
By 'fairly' I assume you mean 'Mullah authorized'.
> > Ahmadinejad was only
> > slightly more 'elected' than Saddam Hussein was.
>
> That's why he had a "shock election win"?
>
> > Both processes were so
> > totally corrupted that they don't resemble anything we in the west would
> > call 'democracy'.
> >
>
> The certainly do resemble what the west calls 'democracy'.
Not at all. What the west calls democracy assumes free and fair elections.
What Iran engages in is Mullah approved theater.
> Independent international election monitors don't seem to have any
> problems with it. If you have something to back up your claims let's
> see it. (Caution: It must exceed the thresholds "theatre" and
> "corrupted" established by Ohio and Florida. :-) )
Something to back up my claims? How about the fact that the Mullah's decide
who runs? (as opposed to - you know - the people)
> >
> >
> > > But now you are talking about countries I see - Syria and Iran. The
> > > greatest similitude they seem to have right now is both are being
> > > targetted by US neocons (or warmongers if you prefer). :-)
> >
> > Close. Both are being targetted by the international community. Syria
for
> > its role in killing Lebanese politicians and support for terrorism; Iran
for
> > its 18 years of lying to the UN about its nuclear program, ongoing lack
of
> > cooperation with the international community regarding same, and
support
> > for terrorism.
>
> I'm aware of the speaking points coming from the US neocons to the
> "international community". No need to regurgitate them here.
And I'm aware of the speaking points the extreme left wing moonbats use to
demonize the US unjustly. No need to regurgitate them here. However, if you
do decide to puke up such nonsense again, I'll be ready to clean it up with
the clean cloth of truth.
> > However both countries have been on the international communities radar
> > screen for years because of their atrocious human rights records.
>
> Something you need to take up with Human Rights Watch I think.
> http://hrw.org .
Take up what?
> They ain't perfect that's for sure. But at least they're democratic.
> :-)
>
> >
> > The US is, logically, part of the international community raising
awareness
> > of these two nations.
>
> Why "logically"?
As above.
> Why these two nations specifically?
As above.
The
> "international community" can be excused some scepticism which comes
> from noting the cherry picking of these two countries and (1) their
> relationship to Israel and (2) their placement in PNAC.
Their 'relationship' to Israel does cause quite a bit of concern in the
international community. Overt threats have a way of attracting attention.
I have no idea what you mean by 'placement in PNAC'. I'm fairly certain PNAC
doesn't guide the foriegn affairs of the international community, regardless
of how much fear mongering left wing moonbats wish it were so.
> > No word on how many, if any, are 'neo-cons'.
>
> Most of them (in PNAC). Don't know how many in Human Rights Watch.
PNAC has nothing to do with the machinations of the US state department.
PNAC is nothing more than a group of conservatives who wrote a few tame
essays. Plus I don't think the PNAC crew is very 'neo-con' ish. From my
impression most of the contributors have always been conservative.
> > Not even
> > sure that term has any meaning beyond an empty polemic.
>
> Sure it does. Don't try that old trick of saying the disease doesn't
> exist. You've tried it before.
Being newly conservative is no more a disease than being a misanthropic
anarchist. In fact for some people I would suspect its a cure. However the
term 'neo-con' as popularly used is a nonsequitur, a useless polemic used by
moonbats to spread unjustified fear for their own purposes. Its become the
new 'boogeyman', kinda like the way 'liberal' was used to demonize Dukakis.
> > So what if some is
> > newly conservative? Could just mean they're in their forties.
>
> Idiot.
There you go with those unwarranted insults again. If you're going to
resort to such desperate and pathetic measures in every single thread then
you don't offer much more than the several other trolls in my KF.
kuff (Isaac Adams)
Count 1 wrote:
> "kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1137804011....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Count 1 wrote:
> > > > One was elected - the President of Iran in "his shock election win in
> > > > June".
> > >
> > > Iranian elections are not democracy, they are theater.
> >
> > "shock election win" demonstrates a degree of non-predictability don't
> > you think?
>
> No, it demonstrates that the Mullah's already knew who would win, they just
> hadn't told anyone.
Horseshit!
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GE25Ak03.html
May 25, 2005
...Moin is in the center of the furor. He is the leading candidate of
the reformists, running for the Islamic Iran Participation Front, the
largest pro-reform political party, led by Mohammad Reza Khatami, the
younger brother of outgoing President Mohammad Khatami, who is barred
from serving a third term. The Supreme Leader and the conservative
ayatollahs around him sensed they might be defeated by a powerful
weapon: absenteeism. Americans may consider a president chosen by
roughly half the electorate as a legitimate one. Not the Iranians. ...
Among the candidates, accepted or rejected, Moin is the only one in
favor of continued suspension of uranium enrichment by Iran, so a
political/economic agreement can be reached with the EU-3. ...
Although Rafsanjani departs with an early lead, polls in Tehran suggest
none of the candidates will get more than 50% of the vote, and thus
preclude a run-off between the top two. Departing president Khatami,
the man who coined the "dialogue among civilizations", tried everything
in his two consecutive four-year terms to reform the system. But he was
ultimately defeated: his two crucial bills to increase presidential
powers were repelled by the conservatives.
Safa Haeri of the Paris-based Iranian Press Service (and contributor to
Asia Times Online) confirms that "except for personal interference by
Khamenei in favor of a certain candidate, namely Ali Larijani, now the
leader's personal representative at the Supreme Council for National
Security, Rafsanjani, the chairman of the influential and powerful
Expediency Council, is likely to reoccupy the seat he held from 1989 to
1997, if not in the first round, but certainly in the second tour of
balloting". As chairman of the Expediency Council, Rafsanjani is
already the de facto No 2 in Iran. The council was established by
Khomeini in 1988 to mediate between parliament and the Guardians
Council. Above it there's only Supreme Leader Khamenei. ...
As far as the elections are concerned, polarization is the name of the
game. The online opposition paper IranEmrooz, edited by Iranian exiles
in Germany, denounces "Islamists trying to legitimate their presence by
... ritual elections that are everything but democratic". Another
newspaper close to the reformists says that "in a democratic system, it
makes no sense that the Guardians Council may disqualify this or that
candidate". On the other side of the fence, government spokesman
Abdullah Ramezanzadeh recently said that "thanks to the Imam
[Khomeini], Iran could progress economically and become independent
from foreign powers". Jomhouri Islami, a newspaper close to the
clerics, insists that to vote "is a religious obligation". Independent
newspaper Shargh gets closer to the mark than anyone: "The government
must not prepare itself for a sweeping conservative victory, but most
of all for massive abstention." It's fair to argue that the ayatollahs
gave post-Shah Iran two major assets - education for all and elections.
All Iranians have been to school, so they are able to judge things for
themselves, much more than under the Shah. As for elections, the
ayatollahs had to notice that they were not able to have a democracy by
remote control. Khatami's first victory in 1997 led to a double-headed
structure of power: theocracy meets democracy. ...
- - - - - - - -
Though Khamenei's preference is mentioned, Ali Larijani, the actual
winner wasn't in this article. Hence his "shock election win".
>
>
> Recall my postings about the campaigns of the various
> > candidates? It was a fairly contested election.
>
> LOL.
>
> By 'fairly' I assume you mean 'Mullah authorized'.
The candidates were vetted by the Guardian Council but the campaigns
and elections were scheduled by and executed in accordance with law.
>
>
> > > Ahmadinejad was only
> > > slightly more 'elected' than Saddam Hussein was.
> >
> > That's why he had a "shock election win"?
> >
> > > Both processes were so
> > > totally corrupted that they don't resemble anything we in the west would
> > > call 'democracy'.
> > >
> >
> > The certainly do resemble what the west calls 'democracy'.
>
> Not at all. What the west calls democracy assumes free and fair elections.
Which Iran had. See above and "shock election win".
> What Iran engages in is Mullah approved theater.
The Guardian Council vets the candidates. I agree that should be
fixed.
>
>
> > Independent international election monitors don't seem to have any
> > problems with it. If you have something to back up your claims let's
> > see it. (Caution: It must exceed the thresholds "theatre" and
> > "corrupted" established by Ohio and Florida. :-) )
>
> Something to back up my claims? How about the fact that the Mullah's decide
> who runs? (as opposed to - you know - the people)
We've covered that. The candidate selection process needs to be
tweaked. Other than that it looks fine. Certainly fine enough to
produce a "shock election win".
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > But now you are talking about countries I see - Syria and Iran. The
> > > > greatest similitude they seem to have right now is both are being
> > > > targetted by US neocons (or warmongers if you prefer). :-)
> > >
> > > Close. Both are being targetted by the international community. Syria
> for
> > > its role in killing Lebanese politicians and support for terrorism; Iran
> for
> > > its 18 years of lying to the UN about its nuclear program, ongoing lack
> of
> > > cooperation with the international community regarding same, and
> support
> > > for terrorism.
> >
> > I'm aware of the speaking points coming from the US neocons to the
> > "international community". No need to regurgitate them here.
>
> And I'm aware of the speaking points the extreme left wing moonbats use to
> demonize the US unjustly.
What about what the right wing neocons use to demonize the PNAC
targets?
(Left wing?!?)
> No need to regurgitate them here. However, if you
> do decide to puke up such nonsense again, I'll be ready to clean it up with
> the clean cloth of truth.
Ha, ha!
>
>
> > > However both countries have been on the international communities radar
> > > screen for years because of their atrocious human rights records.
> >
> > Something you need to take up with Human Rights Watch I think.
> > http://hrw.org .
>
> Take up what?
>
>
> > They ain't perfect that's for sure. But at least they're democratic.
> > :-)
> >
> > >
> > > The US is, logically, part of the international community raising
> awareness
> > > of these two nations.
> >
> > Why "logically"?
>
> As above.
>
>
> > Why these two nations specifically?
>
> As above.
>
> The
> > "international community" can be excused some scepticism which comes
> > from noting the cherry picking of these two countries and (1) their
> > relationship to Israel and (2) their placement in PNAC.
>
> Their 'relationship' to Israel does cause quite a bit of concern in the
> international community. Overt threats have a way of attracting attention.
> I have no idea what you mean by 'placement in PNAC'. I'm fairly certain PNAC
> doesn't guide the foriegn affairs of the international community, regardless
> of how much fear mongering left wing moonbats wish it were so.
>
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=pnac+syria+iran
>
>
> > > No word on how many, if any, are 'neo-cons'.
> >
> > Most of them (in PNAC). Don't know how many in Human Rights Watch.
>
> PNAC has nothing to do with the machinations of the US state department.
Ha, ha, ha!
> PNAC is nothing more than a group of conservatives who wrote a few tame
> essays. Plus I don't think the PNAC crew is very 'neo-con' ish. From my
> impression most of the contributors have always been conservative.
>
>
> > > Not even
> > > sure that term has any meaning beyond an empty polemic.
> >
> > Sure it does. Don't try that old trick of saying the disease doesn't
> > exist. You've tried it before.
>
> Being newly conservative is no more a disease than being a misanthropic
> anarchist.
(What a dipshit.)
This has been explained to you before. Quit playing coy and stupid -
you're way to old for that to be attractive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/
> In fact for some people I would suspect its a cure. However the
> term 'neo-con' as popularly used is a nonsequitur, a useless polemic used by
> moonbats to spread unjustified fear for their own purposes. Its become the
> new 'boogeyman', kinda like the way 'liberal' was used to demonize Dukakis.
>
Yeah, you wish...
>
> > > So what if some is
> > > newly conservative? Could just mean they're in their forties.
> >
> > Idiot.
>
> There you go with those unwarranted insults again. If you're going to
> resort to such desperate and pathetic measures in every single thread then
> you don't offer much more than the several other trolls in my KF.
Why did I think you were itching to reach for your kill file? :-)
Count 1
Count 1
His 'shock election win' is because no one predicted he would 'win'. A fact
which only lends itself to the belief that the Mullahs decided he would
'win'. Heck - we **know** they decide who will run, its really not a
stretch to think they will decide who will 'win'.
> > Recall my postings about the campaigns of the various
> > > candidates? It was a fairly contested election.
> >
> > LOL.
> >
> > By 'fairly' I assume you mean 'Mullah authorized'.
>
> The candidates were vetted by the Guardian Council but the campaigns
> and elections were scheduled by and executed in accordance with law.
Dude...please. The Iranian judiciary is not independent, it is controlled by
the Guarian Council. The Iranian press is not free, all media is approved
by the Guardian Council. The Iranian candidate selection process is not
transparent, it is controlled by the Guardian Council. In Iran there is no
right to freely assemble.
So, I reiterate, by 'fairly' you must mean 'mullah authorized'. Did you
notice they didn't let a woman run this time?
> > > > Ahmadinejad was only
> > > > slightly more 'elected' than Saddam Hussein was.
> > >
> > > That's why he had a "shock election win"?
> > >
> > > > Both processes were so
> > > > totally corrupted that they don't resemble anything we in the west
would
> > > > call 'democracy'.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The certainly do resemble what the west calls 'democracy'.
> >
> > Not at all. What the west calls democracy assumes free and fair
elections.
>
> Which Iran had. See above and "shock election win".
LOL...
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/25/iran.claim/index.html
(...)
""The monitors of the Guardians Council had in all voting stations before
the one in which I was arrested, too, been violating the election laws, and
kept me that they [the GC monitors] were the ones to decide the fate of the
elections, and that I had no right to intervene," he said."
(...)
> > What Iran engages in is Mullah approved theater.
>
> The Guardian Council vets the candidates. I agree that should be
> fixed.
The Guardian Council does a hell of a lot more than just 'vet' the
candidates. You really do need to bring yourself up to speed.
> > > Independent international election monitors don't seem to have any
> > > problems with it. If you have something to back up your claims let's
> > > see it. (Caution: It must exceed the thresholds "theatre" and
> > > "corrupted" established by Ohio and Florida. :-) )
> >
> > Something to back up my claims? How about the fact that the Mullah's
decide
> > who runs? (as opposed to - you know - the people)
>
> We've covered that. The candidate selection process needs to be
> tweaked. Other than that it looks fine. Certainly fine enough to
> produce a "shock election win".
Wanna try that one again?
<snipped>
> > The
> > > "international community" can be excused some scepticism which comes
> > > from noting the cherry picking of these two countries and (1) their
> > > relationship to Israel and (2) their placement in PNAC.
> >
> > Their 'relationship' to Israel does cause quite a bit of concern in the
> > international community. Overt threats have a way of attracting
attention.
> > I have no idea what you mean by 'placement in PNAC'. I'm fairly certain
PNAC
> > doesn't guide the foriegn affairs of the international community,
regardless
> > of how much fear mongering left wing moonbats wish it were so.
> >
>
> http://pnac.info/
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=pnac+syria+iran
What am I supposed to glean from this?
> > > > No word on how many, if any, are 'neo-cons'.
> > >
> > > Most of them (in PNAC). Don't know how many in Human Rights Watch.
> >
> > PNAC has nothing to do with the machinations of the US state department.
>
> Ha, ha, ha!
Laughing is often a defensive mechanism employed when one can't confront the
truth of their failings.
> > PNAC is nothing more than a group of conservatives who wrote a few tame
> > essays. Plus I don't think the PNAC crew is very 'neo-con' ish. From
my
> > impression most of the contributors have always been conservative.
> >
> >
> > > > Not even
> > > > sure that term has any meaning beyond an empty polemic.
> > >
> > > Sure it does. Don't try that old trick of saying the disease doesn't
> > > exist. You've tried it before.
> >
> > Being newly conservative is no more a disease than being a misanthropic
> > anarchist.
>
> (What a dipshit.)
>
> This has been explained to you before. Quit playing coy and stupid -
> you're way to old for that to be attractive.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)
"The term "neocon," while increasingly popular in recent years, is somewhat
controversial and is rejected by many to whom the label is applied. They say
it lacks a coherent definition, claiming that many so-called
neoconservatives disagree on several major issues."
Amen. Its just another boogeyman the moonbats like to toss around.
> http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/
Awww...isn't that cute...a liberal publication saw fit to apply criteria to
a nonsensical phrase.
> > In fact for some people I would suspect its a cure. However the
> > term 'neo-con' as popularly used is a nonsequitur, a useless polemic
used by
> > moonbats to spread unjustified fear for their own purposes. Its become
the
> > new 'boogeyman', kinda like the way 'liberal' was used to demonize
Dukakis.
> >
>
> Yeah, you wish...
No, I don't actually. I'm dismayed at our ongoing need to boil things down
to one word terms to categorize diverse and varied political opinions.
Except 'moonbat'. I like that one.
> > > > So what if some is
> > > > newly conservative? Could just mean they're in their forties.
> > >
> > > Idiot.
> >
> > There you go with those unwarranted insults again. If you're going to
> > resort to such desperate and pathetic measures in every single thread
then
> > you don't offer much more than the several other trolls in my KF.
>
> Why did I think you were itching to reach for your kill file? :-)
I'm not. I'm just letting you know that your reliance on insults and
defensive giggling is making posts less and less valuable. Try facts - and
try thinking before you post.
kuff (Isaac Adams)
The people looking at the polls and who was running and guessing tended
to focus on the well known candidates (and, in partial support of your
'mullah' theory) who Khamenei's preference was.
They made a mistake in their analysis by underestimating what the true,
democratic desires of the voters were.
> A fact
> which only lends itself to the belief that the Mullahs decided he would
> 'win'. Heck - we **know** they decide who will run, its really not a
> stretch to think they will decide who will 'win'.
It's actually quite a bit of a stretch. We know Khamenei's favorite
didn't win for one thing. With the election monitors around for the
voting and ballot counting just how do you suppose these magical
Mullahs pulled it off?
>
>
> > > Recall my postings about the campaigns of the various
> > > > candidates? It was a fairly contested election.
> > >
> > > LOL.
> > >
> > > By 'fairly' I assume you mean 'Mullah authorized'.
> >
> > The candidates were vetted by the Guardian Council but the campaigns
> > and elections were scheduled by and executed in accordance with law.
>
> Dude...please. The Iranian judiciary is not independent, it is controlled by
> the Guarian Council.
Were the services of Judiciary needed? Was there a violation of the
execution of the elections "in accordance with law"?
> The Iranian press is not free, all media is approved
> by the Guardian Council.
Including blogs and international election monitors I suppose.
> The Iranian candidate selection process is not
> transparent, it is controlled by the Guardian Council.
I wouldn't even care if it were transparent. My problem is the
restriction on who may be a candidate not on how pure the the
restrictions and processes are.
That selection process, as I've said about 10 times now, needs to be
fixed.
> In Iran there is no
> right to freely assemble.
You mean there are no "free speech zones" like there are in the US? :-)
Isn't there freedom of assembly to vote?
>
> So, I reiterate, by 'fairly' you must mean 'mullah authorized'. Did you
> notice they didn't let a woman run this time?
And the last woman US president was? ...
>
>
> > > > > Ahmadinejad was only
> > > > > slightly more 'elected' than Saddam Hussein was.
> > > >
> > > > That's why he had a "shock election win"?
> > > >
> > > > > Both processes were so
> > > > > totally corrupted that they don't resemble anything we in the west
> would
> > > > > call 'democracy'.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The certainly do resemble what the west calls 'democracy'.
> > >
> > > Not at all. What the west calls democracy assumes free and fair
> elections.
> >
> > Which Iran had. See above and "shock election win".
>
> LOL...
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/25/iran.claim/index.html
>
> (...)
> ""The monitors of the Guardians Council had in all voting stations before
> the one in which I was arrested, too, been violating the election laws, and
> kept me that they [the GC monitors] were the ones to decide the fate of the
> elections, and that I had no right to intervene," he said."
> (...)
And? Sounds to me like he was disrupting a polling place.
It goes on to say:
"He said he was freed after two-and-a-half hours in the
Khani-Abad-e-Nou police station jail "thanks to the interference of the
Interior Ministry.""
So now wait a minute. The Iranian elections are, according to you,
theatre with the outcomes determine by the Mullahs. Your own story
begins:
"An official with Iran's Interior Ministry has accused Iran's Guardian
Council of election fraud"
So you have an Iranian government official criticizing the behavior of
some other Iranian government officials at some polling places.
Apparently he was pretty vocal and disruptive at one location and was
arrested.
Then he was released after 2 1/2 hours.
Gee, why wasn't he executed or disappeared or why isn't he still
rotting in prison?
I know. He's one of the Magical Mullah Mystery Theatre players. The
whole thing was a sham designed to decieve the West. :: smirk ::
>
>
>
> > > What Iran engages in is Mullah approved theater.
> >
> > The Guardian Council vets the candidates. I agree that should be
> > fixed.
>
> The Guardian Council does a hell of a lot more than just 'vet' the
> candidates. You really do need to bring yourself up to speed.
>
Really? What else do they do with the candidates?
>
> > > > Independent international election monitors don't seem to have any
> > > > problems with it. If you have something to back up your claims let's
> > > > see it. (Caution: It must exceed the thresholds "theatre" and
> > > > "corrupted" established by Ohio and Florida. :-) )
> > >
> > > Something to back up my claims? How about the fact that the Mullah's
> decide
> > > who runs? (as opposed to - you know - the people)
> >
> > We've covered that. The candidate selection process needs to be
> > tweaked. Other than that it looks fine. Certainly fine enough to
> > produce a "shock election win".
>
> Wanna try that one again?
No.
>
> <snipped>
>
> > > The
> > > > "international community" can be excused some scepticism which comes
> > > > from noting the cherry picking of these two countries and (1) their
> > > > relationship to Israel and (2) their placement in PNAC.
> > >
> > > Their 'relationship' to Israel does cause quite a bit of concern in the
> > > international community. Overt threats have a way of attracting
> attention.
> > > I have no idea what you mean by 'placement in PNAC'. I'm fairly certain
> PNAC
> > > doesn't guide the foriegn affairs of the international community,
> regardless
> > > of how much fear mongering left wing moonbats wish it were so.
> > >
> >
> > http://pnac.info/
> >
> > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=pnac+syria+iran
>
> What am I supposed to glean from this?
Whether there's any apparent connection between PNAC and the current
campaigns against Syria and Iran. Do try to stay focused.
>
>
> > > > > No word on how many, if any, are 'neo-cons'.
> > > >
> > > > Most of them (in PNAC). Don't know how many in Human Rights Watch.
> > >
> > > PNAC has nothing to do with the machinations of the US state department.
> >
> > Ha, ha, ha!
>
> Laughing is often a defensive mechanism employed when one can't confront the
> truth of their failings.
>
And it is often not. (Did you know the Pentagon advises military
families to laugh more? Ha, ha, ha! - hilarious.)
>
>
> > > PNAC is nothing more than a group of conservatives who wrote a few tame
> > > essays. Plus I don't think the PNAC crew is very 'neo-con' ish. From
> my
> > > impression most of the contributors have always been conservative.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Not even
> > > > > sure that term has any meaning beyond an empty polemic.
> > > >
> > > > Sure it does. Don't try that old trick of saying the disease doesn't
> > > > exist. You've tried it before.
> > >
> > > Being newly conservative is no more a disease than being a misanthropic
> > > anarchist.
> >
> > (What a dipshit.)
> >
> > This has been explained to you before. Quit playing coy and stupid -
> > you're way to old for that to be attractive.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)
>
> "The term "neocon," while increasingly popular in recent years, is somewhat
> controversial and is rejected by many to whom the label is applied. They say
> it lacks a coherent definition, claiming that many so-called
> neoconservatives disagree on several major issues."
"Mafia" is a slur on the Italian community. There's no such thing.
Yeah, sure.
>
> Amen. Its just another boogeyman the moonbats like to toss around.
Ah, I noticed you dropped "left wing". Good for you.
>
> > http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/
>
> Awww...isn't that cute...a liberal publication saw fit to apply criteria to
> a nonsensical phrase.
Yes, very cute. What publications apply criteria to the Magical
Mullah Mystery theatre?
>
>
> > > In fact for some people I would suspect its a cure. However the
> > > term 'neo-con' as popularly used is a nonsequitur, a useless polemic
> used by
> > > moonbats to spread unjustified fear for their own purposes. Its become
> the
> > > new 'boogeyman', kinda like the way 'liberal' was used to demonize
> Dukakis.
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, you wish...
>
> No, I don't actually. I'm dismayed at our ongoing need to boil things down
> to one word terms to categorize diverse and varied political opinions.
Like "zionist" - a self-applied term in your case?
>
> Except 'moonbat'. I like that one.
>
>
> > > > > So what if some is
> > > > > newly conservative? Could just mean they're in their forties.
> > > >
> > > > Idiot.
> > >
> > > There you go with those unwarranted insults again. If you're going to
> > > resort to such desperate and pathetic measures in every single thread
> then
> > > you don't offer much more than the several other trolls in my KF.
> >
> > Why did I think you were itching to reach for your kill file? :-)
>
> I'm not. I'm just letting you know that your reliance on insults and
> defensive giggling is making posts less and less valuable. Try facts - and
> try thinking before you post.
I always think before I post. If you can't see past the < .01% of my
postings which are insults and what you mistake for "defensive
giggling" I think you have a more substantive issue than what you are
defensively claiming.
Richard Dell
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7374/334/1600/bashar1.jpg
Count 1
> > > > In fact for some people I would suspect its a cure. However the
> > > > term 'neo-con' as popularly used is a nonsequitur, a useless polemic
> > used by
> > > > moonbats to spread unjustified fear for their own purposes. Its
become
> > the
> > > > new 'boogeyman', kinda like the way 'liberal' was used to demonize
> > Dukakis.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yeah, you wish...
> >
> > No, I don't actually. I'm dismayed at our ongoing need to boil things
down
> > to one word terms to categorize diverse and varied political opinions.
>
> Like "zionist" - a self-applied term in your case?
Yes, exactly like that. Often when one says zionist they make no
distinction as to what kind of zionist they mean. The term encompasses a
large body of people which inevitably brings a wide variety of opinions.
Given what you know of me, you must surely be aware that I could never be a
religious zionist, who believes 'Eretz Israel' belongs solely to the jews to
prepare for whatever silliness it is they want to prepare for.
Consider the terms 'neo-conservative' and 'liberal' in a similar manner
(much more so the latter, but that's a different topic). Because of the
breadth of opinion and thought found within the groups themselves using the
terms to describe any person or diplomatic strategy is meaningless. They
just mutate into simple one word polemics used to attack someone else.
Its the old dichotomy, left versus right, conservative versus progressive,
yada yada yada...
When you used the term in; "The greatest similitude they seem to have right
now is both are being targetted by US neocons." you end up not really saying
anything. Who are the architects behind the US's current diplomatic strategy
for Iran? Are they 'neo-cons'? Can their strategy be described using more
specific terms to the topic?
Now you're about to dive onto google to show me the neocons who are the
architects. This is - unfortunately - not the kind of information one finds
online, and I hate to say it but that's another symptom of the same disease
we have in the west. We want convenient information quickly, so we say
'neocon' or 'raghead', or we begin to think google can provide all truth.
See kuff? You are a product of your culture. Even if you do think the
borders of your nation run around your feet.
kuff (Isaac Adams)
Count 1 wrote:
> > > > > In fact for some people I would suspect its a cure. However the
> > > > > term 'neo-con' as popularly used is a nonsequitur, a useless polemic
> > > used by
> > > > > moonbats to spread unjustified fear for their own purposes. Its
> become
> > > the
> > > > > new 'boogeyman', kinda like the way 'liberal' was used to demonize
> > > Dukakis.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, you wish...
> > >
> > > No, I don't actually. I'm dismayed at our ongoing need to boil things
> down
> > > to one word terms to categorize diverse and varied political opinions.
> >
> > Like "zionist" - a self-applied term in your case?
>
> Yes, exactly like that. Often when one says zionist they make no
> distinction as to what kind of zionist they mean. The term encompasses a
> large body of people which inevitably brings a wide variety of opinions.
>
> Given what you know of me, you must surely be aware that I could never be a
> religious zionist, who believes 'Eretz Israel' belongs solely to the jews to
> prepare for whatever silliness it is they want to prepare for.
No, I don't believe you are a religious Zionist. Nor a religious
zionist. (Maybe a buddhist zionist but that's for a different day).
>
> Consider the terms 'neo-conservative' and 'liberal' in a similar manner
> (much more so the latter, but that's a different topic). Because of the
> breadth of opinion and thought found within the groups themselves using the
> terms to describe any person or diplomatic strategy is meaningless. They
> just mutate into simple one word polemics used to attack someone else.
Yes, I would tend to agree with that in general. Labels like
'zionist', 'liberal', 'neocon', 'right-wing', 'moonbat' are often found
to be attached with water-based glue so that in inclement weather they
slide around if not fall off all together.
The 'grief' I have with you, to some degree, is that you willingly
apply a label to yourself which has always seemed to me a placing of
youself in an ideological box. I know the young, bless their eager
monkey faces, like to do that from a need to belong but folks a 'mile
or two' down the road should outgrow it. IMO.
>
> Its the old dichotomy, left versus right, conservative versus progressive,
> yada yada yada...
>
> When you used the term in; "The greatest similitude they seem to have right
> now is both are being targetted by US neocons." you end up not really saying
> anything. Who are the architects behind the US's current diplomatic strategy
> for Iran? Are they 'neo-cons'? Can their strategy be described using more
> specific terms to the topic?
Yes, I think they can. Now this is just a statement I'm making
without bothering to bring up the PNACs and "Green Peril" resources on
the internet but I'm pretty sure I recall and probably can trace the
'architecture' of the present US posture back to "neocon" sources.
>
> Now you're about to dive onto google to show me the neocons who are the
> architects.
Well, er, no I wasn't. The 'tone' of your posting is so reasonable
(the "truce" may expire at any moment though) I didn't think it
necessary - we can discuss it at a high level as honorable men without
flinging binary feces at each other. :-)
> This is - unfortunately - not the kind of information one finds
> online, and I hate to say it but that's another symptom of the same disease
> we have in the west. We want convenient information quickly, so we say
> 'neocon' or 'raghead', or we begin to think google can provide all truth.
I call that the "dictionary effect". Some folks look to a dictionary
for what words should mean. I look to a dictionary for what words mean
at this 'moment'. To me a dictionary, or the internet, is simply what
most people are saying or believing right now about particular words
and topics.
>
> See kuff? You are a product of your culture. Even if you do think the
> borders of your nation run around your feet.
I use the culture as well. I'm more of a surfer than a scuba diver.
:-)
Count 1
> > (much more so the latter, but that's a different topic). Because of the
> > breadth of opinion and thought found within the groups themselves using
the
> > terms to describe any person or diplomatic strategy is meaningless. They
> > just mutate into simple one word polemics used to attack someone else.
>
> Yes, I would tend to agree with that in general. Labels like
> 'zionist', 'liberal', 'neocon', 'right-wing', 'moonbat' are often found
> to be attached with water-based glue so that in inclement weather they
> slide around if not fall off all together.
>
> The 'grief' I have with you, to some degree, is that you willingly
> apply a label to yourself which has always seemed to me a placing of
> youself in an ideological box. I know the young, bless their eager
> monkey faces, like to do that from a need to belong but folks a 'mile
> or two' down the road should outgrow it. IMO.
IMO its a myth that we can outgrow being ideologically boxed in - another
one will just be constructed. You'll be as placable on your deathbed as you
are right now. There is no 'need to belong' at all in my case. In my RL
Israel simply doesn't come up as a topic of conversation.
But if asked I'd tell them, and I'd tell them why.
Will I feel the same way in 20 years? I have no idea. I really don't. But
whatever I do think, someone will be able to place me in an ideological box.
It's a 'given', there's no purpose in fighting it, and there's much to gain
in working with it.
IMO.