Top Leaderboard, Site wide
August 1, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed


sign up to get updates

Hydropower Illuminates a Piece of History

Truthdig Bazaar
Palimpsest: A Memoir

Palimpsest: A Memoir

By Gore Vidal

more items


The Middle East Never Tires of Threats

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jun 16, 2008
AP Photo/Vahid Salemi

By Robert Fisk

Originally printed in The Independent.

What is it about threats? What possesses half the Middle East to shout abuse all the time? First we have Ahmadinejad, one of the most crackpot presidents in the world, raving away about annihilating Israel. Then we have Shaul Mofaz, the deputy Israeli Prime Minister, telling the world that there would have to be attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Mofaz was maybe trying to walk tall beside the increasingly powerless Ehud Olmert, or maybe he was just trying to make up for having been a spectacularly unsuccessful chief of staff in his previous incarnation. But why do we have to listen to all this? In fact, why must we take it seriously at all? “Israel warns” has become one of the great clichés of our journalism—along, of course, with “Arabs threaten”.

But here we go again, Mofaz talks up war and up again goes the price of oil. It’s not that long ago—2006, to be precise—when we had another Israeli chief of staff, Dan Halutz, warning that he would destroy 10-story buildings in Beirut’s southern suburbs for every rocket fired at Haifa—quite a threat, except that Danny Boy’s lads had already destroyed all the 10-story buildings in the Beirut suburbs.

And it was only 26 years ago, I recall, that Menachem Begin, then the Israeli prime minister, announced that he was going to “root out the evil weed of terror” from Lebanon.


Square, Site wide
One night, sitting by the empty pool of the Commodore Hotel, I listened on my transistor—yes, those were the days, weren’t they—as a newsreader announced that Yasser Arafat was metaphorically promising to chop off Mr. Begin’s left arm. Within hours, Begin was rabbiting away about chopping off part of Mr. Arafat’s anatomy. I laughed so much I could have fallen into the empty pool.

And where, pray, today is the “evil weed of terror”? Well, according to the Bush boys, it’s now all over south-west Asia, in Gaza, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Syria, in Lebanon. So much for the “evil weed”, which seems to have grown deeper roots than the late Mr. Begin thought. Besieging west Beirut in 1982, the Israelis warned that every civilian should leave the city if he or she valued the lives of their families. I’ve still got the little air-dropped threats which said this (admittedly in execrable Arabic). But most Beirutis just ignored it.

Then the Israelis warned that journalists were going to be kidnapped during the siege if they did not leave west Beirut—another good try to cut down on our reporting. But we ignored the threats and stayed and were not kidnapped, but we were there to record the war crimes of Sabra and Chatila on 18 September 1982.

The Arabs used to have quite a monopoly on threats. I remember one spring day in 1978 when a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine general command (itself a preposterous title) stormed up to me after an Israeli raid in southern Lebanon. He shook his hand at the sky. “We shall stand in the last ditch against the Zionist death wagon,” he roared. The what, I asked? The what? Well, I bet he had them shaking in their boots in Tel Aviv with that one. Anyway, back came the planes and the last I saw of this preposterous warrior, he was hurling himself into a very real ditch to avoid the death wagon.

The problem about threats, of course, is that once you’ve made them, you’ve either got to carry them out or pretend you were misunderstood. I never believed George Bush would invade Iraq; not, that is, until I turned up at UN headquarters in New York and actually heard him ranting on about the powerlessness of the UN. And then he actually did invade Iraq. And I still have my notes of an interview with a certain Osama bin Laden, and his last words to me were: “I pray that God permits us to turn America into a shadow of itself.” And I wrote in the margin the one word “rhetoric?” September 11 cleared that one up.

I fear very much that we indulge ourselves in threats. Newspapers love threats—or warnings—because they ramp up the fear factor. And governments love threats. Hence all those orange alerts and purple warnings and endless waffle from the Ministry of Fear about the “terrorist” threat lasting a lifetime, a generation or—this was Bush, I seem to remember—that the “war on terror” might have to go on for ever. For ever? Even the Thousand Year Reich wasn’t supposed to go on for that long.

But there was one dark soul who did use threats to induce fear more frequently than anyone else. Yes, I am talking about Hitler, who would scream and rage at nations and empires and generals and—by and large, between 1933 and autumn 1939—he pretty much got what he wanted.

That, I suspect, is why we all still fear threats so much. Because Hitler had a habit of carrying out his threats, and all across the dark continent, men shook with fear that he would smash them—and he did. The entire Gestapo was threat—which was why Churchill always pronounced it as “the Nazi Jest-a-po” in an attempt to take its fear quotient away, even as he was talking of Europe under the Germans’ “cruel heel”.

And when Ahmadinejad talks of annihilating Israel, he cowers, of course, under the shadow of Hitler. And he intends, I think, to make us fear him—although no Iranian military force would let him get his hands on anything nuclear. “Annihilating” Israel—always supposing anyone would truly contemplate it—also means annihilating the West Bank and Gaza and much of Lebanon and Jordan and probably the whole Middle East.

But Hitler is dead and we need to escape from the world of threats. Was it not King Lear who once shouted: “I shall do such things, what they are yet I know not—but they shall be the terrors of the earth.” Poor old Lear.

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By oyunforum, May 22, 2010 at 7:00 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)


Report this

By Oyun Forum, April 3, 2010 at 9:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Yes, CorkExaminer, I read you article “Why Fisk is Wrong about Ahmadinejad” after reading Fisk’s. And I have to say that I concur with yours.

Though I am traditionally an admirer of Fisk and his known criticism of the colonialist policies of Israel, Britain and America, in this article, particularly the part on Ahmadinejad, he is totally off the mark. It seems to me he has a change of heart based on new agenda, or he has grown too old an cynical that he really doesn’t know what he is talking about.

Report this

By cyrena, June 24, 2008 at 4:31 pm Link to this comment

mrmb and Jack. Thanks for the replies. This is continuing as planned, and yes…has me freaked out, even though I knew they would do this..

“..The Coming Catastrophe?
The finishing touches on several contingency plans for attacking Iran..”

By David DeBatto

URL of this article:

Global Research, June 23, 2008

Global Research Editor’s note

We bring to the attention of our readers David DeBatto’s scenario as to what might occur if one of the several contingency plans to attack Iran, with the participation of Israel and NATO, were to be carried out. While one may disagree with certain elements of detail of the author’s text, the thrust of this analysis must be taken seriously.
“Israel has said a strike on Iran will be “unavoidable” if the Islamic regime continues to press ahead with alleged plans for building an atom-bomb.” (London Daily Telegraph, 6/11/2008)
“Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany joined President Bush on Wednesday in calling for further sanctions against Iran if it does not suspend its uranium enrichment program.” Mr. Bush stressed again that “all options are on the table,” which would include military force. (New York Times, 6/11/2008)

We are fast approaching the final six months of the Bush administration. The quagmire in Iraq is in its sixth painful year with no real end in sight and the forgotten war in Afghanistan is well into its seventh year. The “dead enders” and other armed factions are still alive and well in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan again controls most of that country. Gas prices have now reached an average of $4.00 a gallon nationally and several analysts predict the price will rise to $5.00-$6.00 dollars per gallon at the pump by Labor Day. This, despite assurances by some major supporters of the decision to invade Iraq that the Iraq war “will pay for itself” (Paul Wolfowitz) or that we will see “$20.00 per barrel” oil prices if we invade Iraq (Rupert Murdoch).

One thing the Pentagon routinely does (and does very well) is conduct war games. Top brass there are constantly developing strategies for conducting any number of theoretical missions based on real or perceived threats to our national security or vital interests. This was also done prior to the invasion of Iraq, but the Bush administration chose not to listen to the dire warnings about that mission given to him by Pentagon leaders, or for that matter, by his own senior intelligence officials. Nevertheless, war gaming is in full swing again right now with the bullseye just to the right of our current mess – Iran.

It’s no secret that the U.S. is currently putting the finishing touches on several contingency plans for attacking Iranian nuclear and military facilities. With our ground forces stretched to the breaking point in Iraq and Afghanistan, none of the most likely scenarios involve a ground invasion. Not that this administration wouldn’t prefer to march into the seat of Shiite Islam behind a solid, moving line of M1 Abrams tanks and proclaim the country for democracy. The fact is that even the President knows we can’t pull that off any more so he and the neo-cons will have to settle for Shock and Awe Lite.

Read more at the link:

URL of this article:

Report this

By mrmb, June 24, 2008 at 10:12 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Just a follow up to our previous threads, conspiracy, war crimes, zionism and etc….

Here are facts from our liberating policies (advocated by criminal imperialists / zionists) for the people of Iraq and ME. This is from a piece from


If there is one minor positive outcome of Bush’s Middle East policy, it has to be the removal of Saddam Hussein and his Ba’ath Party from power. But at what price?

1-Iraq has effectively been partitioned among the Shi’ites, Sunnis, and Kurds.
2-Iraq became a vast training ground for extremists from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, and Kuwait.
3-Iraq’s infrastructure has been damaged greatly. It would take decades to put Iraq back to where it was before the war.
4-Much of Iraq’s cultural heritage was looted from museums.
5-Iraqi prisoners were tortured at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.
6-Two million Iraqis have left their country. Clearly, they are the highly educated (at least 3,000 of them professors), professionals, and the affluent, and, therefore, their departure is a great brain drain. Proportionally, it would be equivalent to 24 million Americans leaving the U.S.
7-Close to 2.5 million Iraqis have been displaced within Iraq. Proportionally, it would be equivalent to 30 million American refugees within the U.S.
8-As many as 1.1 million Iraqis may have been killed. Proportionally, it would as if over 13 million Americans had been killed, a staggering number. Notable among the dead are at least 230 Iraqi professors, with another 60 missing, presumably dead.
9-At least 1 million Iraqi children have become orphans.
10-Seventy percent of Iraqi children suffer from mental stress disorder.

Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University, the 2001 Nobel laureate in economics, and Linda Bilmes of Harvard University estimated that the eventual cost of the war may reach $2 trillion. If, for a period of 10 years, the funding for cancer research were doubled, every American with diabetes or heart disease were treated, and a global immunization campaign that could save millions of children were carried out, the total cost would be about $600 billion.
As if the price that the Iraqis have paid so far is not enough, the Bush-Cheney administration has demanded the following in secret “negotiations” with Iraq’s government :

1-Fifty-eight military bases.
2-Control of Iraq’s airspace below 32,000 ft.
3-The authority to kill or arrest, without Iraq’s permission, anyone deemed “hostile.”
4-The authority to stage a war against terrorists anywhere from Iraq without Iraq’s permission.
5-Full immunity from prosecution in Iraq for the U.S. military and civilian contractors.
6-The last one the U.S. also demanded of Iran in the early 1960s, which sparked the June 5, 1963, uprising in Iran, which eventually led to the Iranian Revolution of 1979. As Ayatollah Khomeini said at that time:

“Capitulation means if we kill the dogs that the Americans bring to Iran, we will be jailed, but if they kill us, our spouse, or our children, or destroy our homes, they will not be even prosecuted in Iran.”

Bush’s Iraq legacy? A destroyed country, only nominally unified, and probably a quasi-colony of the U.S. for the foreseeable future.

Report this

By mrmb, June 24, 2008 at 9:05 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)


We are all on the same page. Just a reminder; look at the big picture first and then try to figure out the details if need be.
There are things that will be revealed over time only, therefore patience is required and dont allow them to confuse you.

There are historical, social, economical, cultural, military, technological, ...... trends all around us. But the key is connecting them together and making sense out of these trends.

Use Sherlock Holmes as a guide!! smile

Report this

By jack, June 24, 2008 at 12:48 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

RE:  the NWO-trilateral-Bilderberg stuff

Answer to the question to which JBlack refused to respond: Warren Buffet was waiting to receive the POTUS, 09/11/01 at Offut (US Nuclear HQ), at the end of Air Force One’s dash across the the Gulf Coast, over an hour without fighter cover, after the “Angle is Next” threat was phoned into the Secret Service, accompanied by enough top secret code to convince them the threat was real and that the author of the message could very possibly bypass failsafe and articulate a launch - not a Ludlum novel, a real coup d’état - the rogue network spoke, the POTUS capitulated, launched the GWOT and put the entire US military fully at the service of the NWO.

The 9/11 coup is an open secret in corridors of power the world over - Congress will do nothing…it’s literally scared stiff - you’ll recall the Anthrax investigation died as soon as it revealed the stuff had originated in a US Gov. lab - “protection,” oldest game in the book.

Report this

By cyrena, June 23, 2008 at 11:54 pm Link to this comment

WAIT!! I AGREE with you both!. It must have been the ‘conspiracy’ word..

•  “..You’d accept that they’d settle for just spinning a few stories in the media or hiring a few lobbyists? You accept that Bush Co. lied about everything, except 9/11? Seriously?”

No, No, No. I’ve never believed anything they’ve come up with on 9/11? EVER! I’ve known THAT was the biggest lie since day one. There has never been a single bit of evidence that the official conspiracy could be anything other than a lie.

Same for you mrmb. I don’t know how I allowed myself to be misread, but again…it was probably the conspiracy word.

What I have trouble with is just the details of ONE of the conspiracies, (be it real or otherwise). I’m not convinced on the NWO-trilateral-Bilderberg stuff, and I don’t see Obama as some pre-chosen person way back when, to play the Manchurian candidate role. If there’s a connection there specifically, I don’t see it.

But for the rest, yes I see all of the conspiracies for what they are. Is there a ‘plan’? Like to lock us up? Yeah…I think so. Will we get to the point of a military regime and an SS style operation marching through the streets? I doubt it, but I don’t know. I’d hope to see the most urgent signs of it soon enough to get the hell out of here.

So yes…I DO see alleged think tanks like the PNAC as the basis of the totalitarian ideology that has high jacked us most recently, and yes, I know that it’s been in the making for decades. And, all totalitarian regimes have a global ideology. Now if that’s what you guys mean by a ‘new world order’ than fine. There is no doubt in my mind what those position papers mean, and I know all of the signatories, and they are all actively involved in this take over, and have been for a long time now. If that’s what you’re referencing, then yeah…I do see that, and yeah…that would be a conspiracy I guess. I mean, I see it as the reality, because that’s what it is, so I don’t really think of it in terms of a conspiracy.

It’s this Bilderberg and Trilateral Commission connection that throws me. So far, I’m not sure where the sinister connections come from. The TC has been around for a long time, and has always been pretty transparent. I mean, their stuff is all on the record. In other words, like I said, I’ve still not seen anything that extends to some shadowy global group like an old Ludlum novel. The neocons from the PNAC aren’t ‘shadowy’ so we know about them and the control at the World Bank and the IMF and all of that.

And..we know that 9/11 was an inside job that probably involved the Saudis, the Pakistanis, Israel’s Mossad, and of course, as always…our very own CIA. That’s what CIA is…CONSPIRACY-IN-ACTION. They never stop, and they serve at the direct direction of the President. (or in this case..Dick Cheney).

So, if you mean that the now defunct PNAC and all of the transnationals that they’ve been connected to, are some sort of NWO, (headquartered in Dubai) then I’m likely to understand and accept that. But totalitarian type operators rarely create successors. Doesn’t mean it NEVER happens, but not usually. And if these folks DO have one ‘selected’, it damn sure ain’t Barack Obama. He surprised everybody. So no, he’s not in the NWO.

So: There are conspiracies, and then there are conspiracies. 9/11 is a conspiracy, because the official version of what took place is a lie and a conspiracy. The only connection I can see from 9/11 to a NWO, is that it provided the false flag attack to justify terrorizing the Middle East and controlling the entire region/its resources, for the benefit of the transnationals, who are presumably the NWO operatives.

Is that how you’re figuring the connection?

I don’t believe the NAFTA Superhighway stuff though, or the other related stuff.

Report this

By jack, June 23, 2008 at 2:38 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

RE: I don’t believe any of the NWO or trilateral commission stuff, and I don’t know why anyone indulges in such far out conspiracies when there is enough real terror already.

The terror is so real it’ll kill ya and so it does far too many - and it works to terrorize and polarize - it works so well, it never goes away - GLADIO…look it up!

If you prefer to fight with your antagonists over why Christians hate Muslims hate Jews hate Hindus, et al, and who’s threats are real or phony or spun this way or that, or whatever, many will step up to take you on.

I for one, will not engage in this diversion, as it’s clear to me that the GWOT is an orchestrated GLADIO redux and ISLAMOFASCISM is the bogyman of MONOLITHIC COMMUNISM recast…to serve whom? Not the disenfranchised classes of Middle Eastern failed states, that’s for sure…if anything it makes them the target of even more oppression, terror, kidnappings, renditions, torture and worse.

Who among you seriously believes the global finance oligarchs are willing to let world events run their course without serious intervention from the shadows? You’d accept that they’d settle for just spinning a few stories in the media or hiring a few lobbyists? You accept that Bush Co. lied about everything, except 9/11? Seriously?

Again, 2 things to never forget:

1. “Deception is a state of mind and the mind of the state.” - James Jesus Angelton - Director of CIA Counter Intelligence (1954-74)

2. “The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” - William Colby - Director of the CIA (1973-76)

Report this

By mrmb, June 23, 2008 at 2:07 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)


I do beg to differ. As u know the invasion, wanton destruction of Iraq was pre-meditated and planned. Thats a conspiracy my lady.

The occupation of Palestine by zionists was a pre-meditated act and a conspiracy.

The occupation of American polity by zionists was a pre meditated act and therefore a conspiracy.

The instigation of Saddam to launch an invasion of Iran in 1980 was a pre-meditated act and thereofore a conspiracy.

I can list at least 20 more global conspiracies but the above will suffice for this thread.

All these pre-meditated acts of aggression and conpiracy have one significant common factor: “to hide the truth”.

In the case of Iraq the sheer arogance, ignorance, and incompetancy of those who conspired has exposed the lies and brought out the truth, if partial.

In the case of the occupation of Palestine and the destruction of the Palestinians livelihood, their subjugation and daily humiliation, historical denial of their existance as a people by the zionist leaders, and etc…. has been exposed due to resistance by generations of Palestinians to the detriment of the zionists and their conspiracies.

In the case of occupation of America’s polity they have been very successful and cunning but due to arogance, ignorance, delusional imperial tendencies, and the monumental failure in Iraq they have been exposed in this country and their exposure shall continue till the truth prevails.

In the case of instigating an act of aggression against Iran in 1980 where all imperial mouthpieces were adamant in their expectations and analysis that Iran would fall in 3 months or less and Saddam would be victorious, guess what that conspiracy was demolished by the sheer fact that the Iranians sacrificed themselves in thousands to save their country and their revolution and over the past 20 years since 1989 the truth has come out and those who conspired have been paying through the nose.

Amazing, isnt it??

My lady, dont underestimate those who have power and access to global resources and their continued effort to maintain and expand their criminal enterprise at any cost and eliminate their opponents at any cost.
Thats a conspiracy too my dear!!!

Report this

By cyrena, June 23, 2008 at 1:25 pm Link to this comment

Ok mrmb and zeitgeist, I’m taking your advice. (actually I’d already pretty much considered the same).

In the larger picture, JBlack and Rus7777 are insignificant. At the same time, one should never turn their backs to snake. I learned that the hard way. Sometimes just ignoring the danger leads to more.

But you’re right about pissing in the wind if I was actually trying to provide some knowledge and insight. I have a feeling though, that Russ knows very well what the deal is, and is just being a typical Cheney-O’Reilly and a troll. JBlack is crazy, so that’s definitely a waste there.

Arabian Thoroughbred, thanks for the acknowledgement. And yes, I have been following this for a long time now…(the plans for Iran). It’s very disheartening. But then, I guess that’s an understatement, eh?

I don’t believe any of the NWO or trilateral commission stuff, and I don’t know why anyone indulges in such far out conspiracies when there is enough real terror already.

Report this
amunaor's avatar

By amunaor, June 23, 2008 at 12:20 pm Link to this comment

RE: mrmb


And, cyrena, stop pissing in the wind. You’ll only wet yourself.

Too some folks, ignorance truely is bliss.

Peace, Best Wishes and Hope

Report this

By mrmb, June 23, 2008 at 11:29 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)


I am sorry to say that you are wasting ur time with Russ and JBlack. Just look at their glorious leader in the white house and the neo crazies in the think tanks, that should clarify everything. If one is really confused then just take a look at little mad mccane.

These folks are delusional and drunk on power. They are so clueless!! Dont waste ur time.

Report this

By cyrena, June 23, 2008 at 9:26 am Link to this comment

Well, like I said Russ, I’ve already talked to a whole bunch of Iranians. And the ones I’ve talked to are all very fearful of what they know Dick Bush has in store for them. They are young people and they know the score.

In other words, it is not my ‘opinion’ that the attack on Iran was planned long ago, at the same time that the attack on Iraq was ‘scheduled’. That much was long ago documented in the Clean Break Papers and other policy adopted by the PNAC, and long BEFORE Ahmadinejad became president.

So, you really should try to catch-up. Seymour Hersh has written extensively on this, and Larry Wilkerson, former chief-of-staff to Colin Powell has been speaking and writing on this since leaving the organization in 2004.

Now you’ll have to do your own homework on that, but it’s not a difficult thing. Just check-in with your local library. There are all sorts of resources there.

Report this

By cyrena, June 22, 2008 at 10:10 pm Link to this comment

•  “You see, Cyrena, I am actually what you claim to be. That is how I know you are not.”

Well gee Russ, I’m only an insignificant scholar, and so my ‘research’ is what scholars do to ‘research’. There has never, ever, ever, been ANY indication that you are a scholar, or a teacher, or that you do ‘research’. What kind of ‘research’ do you do Russ?

I once had an uncle, (he’s dead now) who ‘researched’ horse races. He was a life long gambler.

Now you have suggested to me on multiple occasions, that I should ‘talk to Iranians.”
Here’s the last time you suggested it…

“..I implore you to take the time to talk to Iranians. You can’t do your “research” on the Internet.,,”

Well first let me ask you this Russ….WHICH of the 70 million Iranians would you have me talk to, and HOW exactly, (unless they happen to be somewhere OTHER than in Iran) would you have me do that? Are YOU in Iran Russ? Is that how you ‘know’ so much? Is that where you do your ‘research’ Russ? Ooops…probably not. I don’t think there’s much free access to the Internet over there Russ. But then, maybe I’m wrong, since I actually DO manage to get a whole bunch of information on Iran, via the Internet. (Though that isn’t my only source).

Still, since you keep telling me to talk to Iranians, (because of my ‘western mentality…what a joke you are telling somebody else about their ‘western mentality) WHICH ONES Russ? The ones you wanna hold hands with? And, aren’t they HERE in the west Russ? Now if you really want me to talk to them, and interview them as part of my research, just line them up, and make them available. Otherwise, you’re just talking your normal shit.

Meantime, I’ll still look to my multiple sources, and the huge volumes of literature available from Iranian leaders like Shirin Ebadi and the many others I’ve had an opportunity to meet and speak with, and whose work I’ve closely followed.

And no Russ, you are NOT what I am…not even close.

I’ll wait for you to line up all of those Iranians that you want me to talk to, just so you aren’t one of them.

Report this

By Arabian Thoroughbred, June 22, 2008 at 8:59 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Judging from the latest posts and exchanges between Cyrena, on the one hand, and JBlack & Rus 7355, on the other hand, Cyrena comes on the side of peace and commonsense, armed with knowledge, intellectual honesty and acumen, while her opponents come out as crude chauvinist warmongers, lacking in reason, knowledge and intellectual acumen!

Report this

By jack, June 22, 2008 at 8:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

RE: “ there is no doubt that Iran poses an extraordinary threat to Israel and Israel is always justified in making decisions that will provide for its security.”

The voice of Zbigniew Brzezinski, Obama’s foreign affairs advisor and NWO agent, who handpicked Obama to sell their interests to the American Citizenry - watch very closely how this plays out, with ZB, Trilateral Commission Co-founder, handling Obama from the shadows ...

E.G. “The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical. What the Trilateral Commission intends is to create a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nationstates involved. As managers and creators of the system, they will rule the future.”  -  U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater in his l979 book: With No Apologies.

Report this

By mrmb, June 22, 2008 at 7:52 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)


““Barack Obama defends Israel’s concern about Iran’s “extraordinary threat””“

Thats exactly my point!!! The entire political establishment of either party is bought and paid for by the zionists. Thats one of the main criticisms against Obama as a lot of people wrongly assumed that he will confront them or show independence from them. He proved he is no different from the rest.

Report this

By mrmb, June 22, 2008 at 3:13 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

International War Crimes Tribunal
United States War Crimes Against Iraq
Initial Complaint

George Bush, J. Danforth Quayle, James Baker,
Richard Cheney, William Webster, Colin Powell,
Norman Schwarzkopf and Others to be named


Crimes Against Peace, War Crimes, Crimes Against
Humanity and Other Criminal Acts and High Crimes in Violation of the Charter of the United Nations,
International Law, the Constitution of the United States and Laws made in Pursuance Thereof.

Report this

By Double U, June 22, 2008 at 10:46 am Link to this comment

Rus, your simpleton blather is headache-inducing.

Report this

By cyrena, June 22, 2008 at 2:15 am Link to this comment

“..I implore you to take the time to talk to Iranians. You can’t do your “research” on the Internet.,,”

Well Russ, as I’ve already explained to you, I’ve talked to far, far, far more Iranians that you can possibly imagine, and I know far, far, far more of the Iranian history, culture, customs, and politics than you can imagine.

And, I don’t much give a shit whether you believe me or not.

Now, you never did answer my question. WHY does your hero Dick Bush, wish to attack Iran and perpetrate MORE crimes against humanity than they’ve already accomplished in Iraq>

Now I specifically don’t care for your intellectual and other dishonesty and perfidy. So please, this is a straight up question..WHY does Dick Bush wish to attack Iran, (other than that it was the plan all along for the PNAC) and why do you agree that this should happen, knowing that more millions of innocent civilians will be slaughtered, just as they have been in Iraq?

Now just a straight up answer will suffice. No need for the lies and the spin, since I don’t believe your bullshit anymore than you believe my credentials.

Report this

By mrmb, June 22, 2008 at 12:59 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)


Great point about Fisk and I fully agree.

However we do have imperialist / zionist apologists and propagandists here like JBlack and Rus that like to rap themselves in the flag, and since they and their neo crazy leaders did such a great job of lying to themselves and to the rest of the country to get us in a war they just wanna make sure the rest of us ignorant people who r not patriotic and dont understand the great cause and obviously have treasonous tendencies are given a last chance to convert and see the light!!!

These people oppose all form of dissent and consider it treason and they got smoke coming out of their ears and nostrils and fire from their eyes and wish they could fully resurrect the gulag which they already have all over the planet (stalin would be proud) and send us all there for re-education and indoctrination.

If all else fails I think a rendition is in order for people like us!!! To where I dont know but as long as there is a dark cell and a few neo crazies or evangelists zionists run the place it will work.

Report this

By elmysterio, June 22, 2008 at 12:23 am Link to this comment

Ummm… I thought this site was called “TRUTH dig”? If it’s about truth, what the heck is an article by Robert Fisk doing here? He’s repeating the lies right off the bat with “Iran threatening to destroy Israel”... That’s not true.

Report this

By cyrena, June 21, 2008 at 10:53 pm Link to this comment

Well waddaya know..speaking of the devil(s) and the ‘creators of war’ and all of the destruction that automatically goes with it…the war mongers are now trying to re-write the history of the thing that everyone knew was criminally barbaric before it happened.

Seems to fit right in here.

The Return of the Neocons
Thursday 19 June 2008
by: James Risen, The Washington Independent

Bush hawks aggressively working to rewrite accepted Iraq war history.

~  “Ever since the Rumsfeld era at the Pentagon ended abruptly in the aftermath of the Democratic victory in the 2006 mid-term elections, the civilian hawks who ruled the Defense Dept. during the early years of the Iraq war have remained largely silent. They have not engaged publicly even as their culpability for the Iraq war’s myriad failures has congealed into accepted wisdom.

  But for the Pentagon troika most identified with Iraq - former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith - silence has not equaled happiness. It certainly has not meant acceptance of their fate at the hands of the many journalists, former generals and assorted ex-members of the Bush administration who have taken to the cable talk fests and the nation’s media outlets to reject and denounce them. Nor does it mean they walk the aisles at Barnes & Noble with equanimity while scanning shelves filled with books that lay the fault for George W. Bush’s failed presidency at their doorstep.

  This anti-Pentagon historical narrative is straightforward and seems well established: Wolfowitz and Feith ran a neoconservative frat house while an arrogant, fiddling Rumsfeld roared against anyone who dared try to bring him the truth.”

Read the rest at the link

At some point in the near future, these thugs are gonna be running for their lives. (if they don’t manage a fatal destruction of the rest of us before that). Time is running out. They are running scared, because they know they can EXPECT to be called to account for their crimes, as soon as they lose access to the executive branch, and no longer have their own mafia protection solidified by control of our government. Just over 6 months left for them to scramble for whatever they think might save their asses from the tribunals that will surely be conducted, and the possible death penalty that might be a result.

So, rather than just get the hell out of dodge, (which is their only possible escape…and even then, we could still catch ‘em) they’re trying to rewrite the history of their own crimes. Just like Karl Rove always said..They’re an Empire now, and so they make their OWN “reality.”


Thanks much for your post #164627.

Your insight is excellent.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 21, 2008 at 8:04 pm Link to this comment

Oh please. Rus7355 is not to be fathomed. Nobody denies the existence of liberal young Iranians. What is ludicrous is the neoconservative fantasy that liberal Iranians wish us to liberate them by means of violent assault upon their country.

Report this

By mrmb, June 21, 2008 at 7:59 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)


I think u realy miss the point.
Internal, domestic Iranian politics is none of our business. Actually we should stay the fuck away from everyones domestic politics.
No foreign entanglements, including the israeli version.
Actually Rus, I dont want a penny of my taxes going to israel, period!!!

Who the hell are we to tell everyone else what to do and how to behave and how to govern themselves.
The Iranians been around for well over 4000 years and they dont need advice from our bankrupt elite and political leaders. Let alone people like you.

We have a mess on our hands right here at home and I dont need to worry about a country 12000 miles away from me that has never done anything to us except to fight for their right of self determination and how they wanna live.

If they have internal problems (just like everyone else) I’m sure without our meddling and interference they will find their way in time. Thats called social, political, economic evolution, if we actually allow it to happen.

This quasi imperialistic attitude and notion that we decide that the shah was good for Iran and therefore we keep him there by torturing everyone who opposes him, and we decide that the revolution was bad for Iran and therefore we will do anything (immoral and illegal) to overthrow it is so absurd and dangerous that it has corrupted us.
Thats a criminal mindset and our elite are infected by it, time for surgery and clean up.

If the Iranians in diaspora are so unhappy then let them re-connect with people back home and find a solution to their problems. Else they can stay here and enjoy life.

So, quit acting like a soar looser because the revolutionaries threw us out of Iran and have formed an independent system of governance that displeases us. Good for them.

We dont own the ME and its resources, we dont belong there in an imperial manner either. And as long as we think this way and formulate policies accordingly we will be in trouble and the only thing thats a sure bet is that our problems are gonna multiply by a magnitude of 100 and more once another one or two ME countries go the way of Iran and free themselves from our domination.

If we were smart we would rely on soft power; diplomacy, trade, cultural exchanges, scientific exchanges, and etc…..

You will be amazed how well it works instead of going around invading countries, overthrowing their governments, supporting repressive regimes, shoving colonial agreements down their throats and when they oppose it then we send in the jackals to assassinate them. Enough is enough.

We are notorious for this type of policies all over the third world, and then when they get brave and put up a fight we get all bent out of shape and cry foul. We call them names and threaten them and etc…. We all know the scenario and the script!!!

God forbid, no-one has the right to oppose us. How dare they put up a fight. They should just roll over and die.

It aint happening man. Get it??? I take it the answer is a resounding NO!!!

Report this

By cyrena, June 21, 2008 at 7:29 pm Link to this comment


I was doing my very best to be cordial and simply make a suggestion that I thought you might have overlooked. But you feel the need to indulge in petty pissing contests.

For the record russ, I don’t get my information ‘from the media’ as you suggest, in terms of what I think you mean the ‘media’ to be. I don’t watch television, if that’s what you’re suggesting, and haven’t in years. I’m an academic Russ, a member of the UC system here in my own community, and the ‘colleague’ I mentioned was one of many scholars here in that same community. She just happens to be Persian, and from Iran. This is a fortunate thing for us, as well as for her, since the restrictions for Iranian scholars studying here in the US are pretty onerous. She’s one of only a few.

To the extent that my information comes from the Internet, it is to access all of the digital libraries that are available though my academic access. So, you’re ‘assumptions’ usual, incorrect. Meantime, I have traveled extensively in the Middle East and elsewhere, though it is correct to say that I have never been to Iran. (most of the surrounding nation states..yes, but not Iran).

My point in saying that Ahmadinejad was only ONE person, was to make it clear to you that Ahmadinejad does NOT speak for the entire political regime or the government of Iran. I know this Russ, because I have studied their legal and political structure..IN DEPTH. I have studied THEIR media, and I have studied THEIR cultural, and I have studied THEIR system of jurisprudence. It’s what I do in my own studies, which are inclusive of comparative law, in the larger field of Law & Society. I’ve explained this before, so I won’t go into it again.

THAT was my point Russ, and I HAVE spoken to many, many, many, Iranian citizens, and I am well aware that 70% of Iran’s population is under the age of 30. I’m also very well aware that they are far more terrified by the threats from our own crackpot president here in the US, than they are of the president that they elected themselves.

Contrary to your inference, anti-corruption was not the only thing that got Ahmadinejad elected. In reality, the Iranians feel that they have every right, (and they do) to modern technology, including a nuclear energy program. So, even those who did NOT vote for Ahmadinejad are supportive of his efforts in defying the US bully who is determined to prevent them from exercising the rights that they have as a sovereign nation state, and under the terms and agreements of the NPT.

Holding hands in public may indeed be something that some of the young people may want to do. That really is not at all what the US threats to Iran are about, nor is it the reason behind Ahmadinejad’s response. Even YOU can’t possibly believe that! Then again, I guess it sounds really good to distract from the real issues, and that would be the determination of the current US regime to wipe Iran off the map!

Now why do you suppose that is Russ? Surely it doesn’t have anything to do with holding hands in public, thought that might be difficult anyway, if Dick Bush bombs them all.

Report this

By cyrena, June 21, 2008 at 3:05 pm Link to this comment

Russ7355 a question in response to your comment here:

•  “You may find yourself hard pressed to believe that Ahmadinejad means Israel no harm.”

Russ, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that Ahmadinejad’s RHETORIC, (I agree that he is a ‘colorful’ figure) actually meant something. To something like this, I’m inclined to ask, ‘So what?’

Because, in REALITY Russ, Ahmadinejad has NO POWER to make ANY DECISIONS that would or could mean harm to Israel. Or, I can answer very simply and diplomatically by repeating, verbatim, what one of my Iranian colleagues (and Farsi instructor) says to the very subject of Ahmadinejad:

“He is ONE person.”

That point seems to be missed in all the discussion of the rhetoric, and its various translations. That point is this: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the democratically elected President of Iran. What that means is that more Iranians voted for him than those who did not, or voted for someone else. One explanation for the Iranian citizen sentiments in voting for such a hardliner and conservative, is that groups of peoples’ of sovereign states have a tendency to lean toward the hardline/conservative ideologies when they feel threatened, for whatever the reasons.

If you remember correctly, Ahmadinejad was NOT elected until 2005, nearly 5 years after The Coup that put Dick Bush in charge of the US, and long after GW had initiated his OWN rhetoric against Iran. This included speeches, and lectures (from GWB) to the Iranian population, that basically insulted and threatened them on a continuing basis. Stuff like calling them part of an “Axis of Evil” was already a ‘habit’ for GW, long before they voted for Ahmadinejad. So, does that give you an idea of how or why the Iranian people may have decided upon him? I only mention it because this is exactly what was ‘suggested’ for consideration by a prominent expert in Middle Eastern Studies, here at my own academic institution. In short, the Iranians voted for a counter to the threats of the US. Considering the Iranian history, and the well known and long term US intervention into Iranian politics, this is not an unusual response from the Iranian people.

Be that as it may. He is STILL –only one person-!

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Persian: محمود احمدینژاد, Mahmud Ahmadinežâd mæhˈmuːd æhmædiːneˈʒɒːd (help•info); born October 28, 1956)[1][2] is the sixth and current President of the Islamic Republic of Iran. He became president on August 6, 2005 after winning the 2005 presidential election by popular vote.[3] Prior to becoming president, Ahmadinejad served as mayor of Tehran, a governor of Kurdistan, Ardabil, and served in the Iran-Iraq War, as a member of Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution. He is the highest directly elected official in the country; however, according to Article 113[4] of Constitution of Iran, he has much less power than the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of Iran and has the final word in all aspects of foreign and domestic policies.[4][5][6]

So, what difference does it make WHAT he supposedly ‘intends’ in respect to Israel?

Report this

By jack, June 21, 2008 at 2:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

By JBlack, June 20 at 3:10 pm #
...The truth pierces like an arrow.

...and so it does…forget “Blame America” as in Joe Six Pack et al…we’re all cannon fodder and you know it - let’s focus on the New World Oligarchy, the real criminals who set the punters at each other’s throats, faction by faction (or so it appears) -  the progeny of Abraham who may not see eye to eye on everything, but don’t really want to fight and die like the NWO wants them to do.

Notice how whenever peace begins to break out in Palestine, a suicide bomber shows up, or there’s a few rockets here, a kidnapping there - right on cue, the suicide bomber is always identified, almost immediately and the parents are often shocked, not the kid they raised…poor kid, sat in the wrong seat on the bus (the one with a charge planted under it).

Here’s a factoid that rarely comes up: Israel has funded Hamas - well, so what you might say, the CIA has funded Al Queda, primarily through their ISI toadies; and all those Madrassas, mythically preaching hatred for the West…best patsie schools money can buy…ginning up legends on demand.

If anyone doubts the GWOT is not GLADIO redux and Islamofascism is not Monolithic Communism recast, on the subject, please read Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed -

Here’s a question for you, JBlack, after Air Force One left Sarrasota, flying for over an hour without fighter coverage and while receiving a serious threat, in a code-encrusted phone call to the Secret Service, which of the NWO elites was waiting to receive GW Bush at Offut (US Nuclear HQ) on 9/11?

Report this

By mrmb, June 21, 2008 at 2:17 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Since Ahmadinejad’s supposedly verbal attack on the zionist state of israel has been mis-quoted I think its not a bad idea to check an excellent article on how Ahmadinejad’s words have been mis-translated and twisted by US (imperialist / zionist) politicians and media:

Report this

By mrmb, June 21, 2008 at 1:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)


I know I wasted my time explaining things to you in the last two threads.

The last thing I am gonna say to folks like u is that when the republican party gets demolished (war mongers and criminals) this coming election year and we the people also get rid of similar type of jack asses in the democratic party the next two or 3 elections and open up the political space for mentally stable men and women then its people like you and Rus that need to be thrown out of the DOD, State, CIA, media and other places so we can actually have a chance at saving this country and by extension the planet.

You should go and enjoy bill o’reilly, christian zionists and their like, more your type!!!

Report this

By mrmb, June 20, 2008 at 3:10 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am simplifying this for the morons like JBlack and Russ and ......

Acts or actions taken by US and Iran. These are proven historical acts not allegations and I will only name the obvious so these conservative morons dont get confused:

1- US overthrow of Mossadegh government.

2- 25 years of US and israeli support of repression (Shah) and taking an entire country hostage and plundering it.

3- Creation of SAVAK and support, and training of torturers in Iran and beyond.

4- Support of military crackdown during the 1978 uprisings that lead to thousands of death.
I am not mentioning other uprisings in the 60’s that was brutally put down with full American support.

5- Instigating internal strife and civil war after the revolution in order to overthrow the revolution.

6- Assassination and bombing campaigns all over Iran from 1979-1981 in order to overthrow the revolution.

7- Instigating Saddam’s attack and war of aggression against Iran in order to overthrow the revolution.

8- Supplying chemical, biological and nuclear technology to Iraq and supporting Saddam’s use of chemical weapons against Iran and Iraqi civilians.

Above is just a few war crimes conducted by US government going back to 1950’s with full israeli participation.

Here is a list of American allegations against Iran:

1- Take over of the American embassy for 444 days.

2- Supporting the Lebanese when they were invaded in 1982 by the israelis with full American support and blessing.

3- American allegations that Iran was behind the marine barracks bombings.

4- American allegations that Iran was behind the embassy bombings in Lebanon.

5- American allegations that Iran was behind the khobar tower bombings in Saudi Arabia.

There are other imperialist / zionist allegations against Iran, all of which are not proven yet they persist in our corporate owned media which is dominated by imperialist / zionist mouthpieces.

When you compare the acts and actions listed above I think it becomes very clear who the guilty party is.

I rest my case.

I am sure neo cons, neo liberlas, fools and imperial delusionists of all type like JBlack and Russ will continue with their blind hatred of Iran and neglect to look at our governments actions. Dont expect anything less!!!

I do have good news and that is Ramsey Clark has initiated or is about to initiate war crimes charges against little george and little dick in Hauge.

God bless Ramsey Clark!!!

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 20, 2008 at 1:32 pm Link to this comment

By JBlack, June 20 at 12:24 pm:

Your mechanical repetition of the little canned phrase “Blame….America….First!” is asinine. Do you imagine it’s some sort of witty signoff? Your childishly automatic resort to this in each and every post only shows that you are incapable of real discourse.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 20, 2008 at 1:06 pm Link to this comment

Cyrena: Also: could it be that JBlack counts as a “threat” to “The West™” the fact that the Iranians have stated, with wholly justified anger, that if Israel or the US initiates war against Iran, Iran will retaliate?

I guess that’s technically a “threat”, right? How dare they!

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 20, 2008 at 12:50 pm Link to this comment

By cyrena, June 20 at 11:14 am:

Perhaps JBlack thinks we can’t distinguish between expressions of hostility and actual threats? I mean, no one here is denying that “I’m-a-dinner-jacket” doesn’t LIKE the Israeli regime, for example.

But is Israel, really, “the West”?

And anyway, are we supposed to go to war anytime someone expresses animosity towards “The West” ™ as JBlack defines it?

And does he have any comcept of the axiomatic principle that when you claim the existence of something, it’s up to YOU to provide the evidence?

Report this

By cyrena, June 20, 2008 at 12:14 pm Link to this comment

Ok Russ, and JBlack, let’s break this down step by step, to see if you all can even try to get this.

Russ writes this:

•  “As you yourself were witness to both Cyrena and Ed put words in your post that did not exist.”

But, that did not happen. So, let’s go back to the original question that JBlack posted.

•  “…Ed, Cyrena and mrmb: can each of you give us 10 examples of real Iranian threats toward the West? Because if you cannot then you all have no idea what it is you each speak of….”

And then he goes on and on with more insults and all of the rest. But, that seems to be the question. Read it again. He does in fact repeat this again and again. Any sane person reading this, would read it as him asking for examples (10 of them) or ‘real’ Iranian threats toward the West.

The responses from Ed and myself have been the same. In speaking for myself, I have unequivocally stated that such threats DO NOT EXIST.

Moreover, I have NEVER claimed that such threats exist. I have never read a post from Ed Harges that claims such threats exist. In other words, JBlack has set up a straw man argument, for the purposes of..well, we don’t know. I mean, we could try to ‘guess’ but that’s like trying to interpret the illogic of insanity, and I don’t pretend to be able to do that.

But, the bottom line is. Iran has NEVER threatened the West, nor have we suggested anywhere on any of these threads that Iran has EVER threatened the West.

Let me repeat that. Neither Ed Harges or I have EVER claimed that Iran has ever directed ANY threats, (real or otherwise) to the West. (meaning the US and/or Europe). Since we have NEVER suggested anything like that, WHY would JBlack ask us to give examples of such a thing? Why does JBlack want us to gives examples of claims that WE HAVE NEVER MADE, about a non-reality?

Let us repeat this again. Iran has never threatened the West.

Iran has never threatened the west.

Neither Ed Harges, mrmb, or I, have ever SAID that Iran has threatened the west.

Ergo, JBlack is on crack, if he expects us to give examples of something that doesn’t exist, and we have never claimed existed.

Now the question for JBlack and Rus777 is this:


That’s your assignment for the rest of the summer. Tell us why the US has been planning (for over a decade) to attack Iran, (as they have Iraq), when there have NEVER been any threats from Iran toward the West?

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 20, 2008 at 10:01 am Link to this comment

By JBlack, June 20 at 5:44 am:

Totally without substance. Amazing.

Report this

By jack, June 20, 2008 at 10:00 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

TO:  Rus7355 & JBlack - America is not to blame - we’re all cannon fodder to the New World Oligarchy - you too - you pay as we all do for a war machine that serves them - we pay with everything from money to blood - we are nothing to them - nothing

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 20, 2008 at 6:01 am Link to this comment

re:By JBlack, June 19 at 7:29 pm:

Amazing, JBlack. YOU are claiming that we are direly threatened by Iran, enough to justify war, and then you demand that WE provided the evidence for such a threat.

Look, kiddo. We have done our job. We have addressed the main “threats” being offered to justify war - namely, the supposed to nuclear threat and the supposed existential threat to Israel - and have shown them to be either wholly false, wildly speculative, or otherwise completely inadequate as justifications for the United States to go to war — especially given the certain consequences of such a war.

We’ve done our job. Don’t expect us to do yours.

Report this

By mrmb, June 20, 2008 at 12:02 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)


I did implicitly refer to the fact that the imperialists looked at Mossadegh as a Soviet stooge or even an ally in my threads, which was a huge fabrication of the facts on the ground.

Lets Go to your favorite subject, after the end of WWII the Soviets had refused to leave norhern parts of Iran as agreed upon, specifically Azarbaijan, and they only left under the threat of a nuclear attack by USA.

They did however manage to leave remnants of their local allies to try to instigate an uprising which was dealt with by the government forces.

The perceived Soviet threat shaped our policy not just in Iran but across the globe and hence the cold war, there is no doubt about that, but that does not justify our criminal conduct in Iran or other places and the numbers are too numerous. Our criminal intervention in Iran is the main point of my thread.

In Iran the Tudeh party had a very strong political organization and grass roots support, with the baggage that the Tudeh communist party had total allegiance to the Soviets which in the final analysis worked against the party and its political objectives. It was this communist party presence in Iran that was effectively exploited by the imperialists to overthrow Mossadegh.

Having said that, if you really have any sense of history and culture of the ME you would know that communists can never gain power in muslim countries as the massess are deeply religeous and the communist ideology and the lingo and terminology used by them is totally alien to the
masses and one of the main weaknesses of the communists has been this exact point (in muslim lands). Communists have had much more success in christian countries.

It is fair to say that Islam does offer a social and political framework for muslims to fight colonialism, imperialism, dictatorship, social and economical injustice and etc….. Unfortunately the same can not be said about christianity, hence the attraction of the inteligensia and the massess to an alternative liberation ideology like communism, till the advent of the 80’s and the participation of the catholic clergy in central america with a new christian liberation theology.

Back to the original discussion, the American and British exaggeration and outright misrepresentations and lies of the facts on the ground in Iran to tailor a policy of domination and colonization of Iran was doomed to failure from the start as history clearly shows.

The use of the Soviet Union as a boogy man to scare people and politicians to back imperialist objectives is well documented and does not require a narrative on my part.

The same bankrupt scare tactics is being used today, the only difference is that Soviet Union is replaced by Iran and communism has been replaced by Islam.

What needs to be understood is that the American experience in Iran was a failure and a disaster and the root cause of it are clearly visible to an unbiased observer.

You also want to know if Iran is a threat to anyone or has posed a threat as such. Its sufficient for you to know that Iran has not initiated an act of aggression against a ME country or beyond in modern history. Iran has been the victim of aggression unless one is an expert in twisting historical facts.

I can certainly understand that imperialists and zionists feel threatened by Iran and to that I say so what.

By their very nature imperialists and zionists belong in the trash bin of history and they are already marching and on their way!!!

Report this

By cyrena, June 19, 2008 at 7:27 pm Link to this comment

“..Ed, Cyrena and mrmb: can each of you give us 10 examples of real Iranian threats toward the West? Because if you cannot then you all have no idea what it is you each speak of.,,,Why are all your thoughts and focus so narrow? So myopic? How is it possible with so many resources now available to you? I think it’s a mindset. I think you are all conditioned toward one thought. One notion first. Nothing ever penetrates past it.
Blame…... America…... First.
Give us 10 real theats from Iran that we can all see and verify. Show us you can think past Blaming….America….First. “
This is the most incredibly stupid connection I’ve heard in ages!

When have you EVER heard or read ANY of us make any claims that Iran was even a SINGLE real threat. I’ve never suggested that Iran was ANY threat.

So you’re either bat-shit crazy by genetic occurrence,  or you’re on some serious dope.

Report this

By mrmb, June 19, 2008 at 2:31 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ed, Cyrena,

The naval blockade option is a true story and its not the first time that western powers navaly blockaded Iran.

The first time was in the 50’s when the british faced Mossadegh and one of the tools in their criminal endeavour was a naval blockade of Iran to prevent Iranian oil from being purchased and
shipped and therefore financially bring down the government.

That blockade failed and terefore they moved to the next game plan, destabilization and coup.

We also mounted a naval blockade of Iran during the Iran-Iraq war in support of Iraq (no body really talks about that, yet).

Since we failed to overthrow the revolution by assassination, pscy ops, terrorrism, instigating internal strife, economic sanctions, and
a US instigated and managed war of aggression against Iran (refer to william Casey’s confessions in Bob Woodward’s book: Veil, The Secret Wars of the CIA, 1981-1987, where he admits in his conversations with Bob Woodward about our policies regarding Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. MUST READ….) We constantly look for manufactured issues to finish the job.
Hence the nuclear issue, the threat against israel, meddling in Iraq and etc….. to initiate conflict and finish the job.

So, the naval blockade is another attempt by the zionists / imperialists to instigate a war of aggression against Iran.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 19, 2008 at 1:28 pm Link to this comment

re: By cyrena, June 19 at 11:50 am:

Wow. God, Cyrena, is this really true? We are so effed.

Report this

By cyrena, June 19, 2008 at 12:50 pm Link to this comment

More than threats, this is the reality of what AIPAC is currently attempting to force upon the US Congress.

House Resolution Calls for Naval Blockade against Iran
America’s powerful pro-Israel lobby pressures the US Congress

By Andrew W Cheetham

Global Research, June 18, 2008

“A US House of Representatives Resolution effectively requiring a naval blockade on Iran seems fast tracked for passage, gaining co-sponsors at a remarkable speed, but experts say the measures called for in the resolutions amount to an act of war.

H.CON.RES 362 calls on the president to stop all shipments of refined petroleum products from reaching Iran. It also “demands” that the President impose “stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo entering or departing Iran.”

Analysts say that this would require a US naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz.

Since its introduction three weeks ago, the resolution has attracted 146 cosponsors. Forty-three members added their names to the bill in the past two days.

In the Senate, a sister resolution S.RES 580 has gained co-sponsors with similar speed. The Senate measure was introduced by Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh on June 2. In little more than a week’s time, it has accrued 19 co-sponsors.

AIPAC’s Endorsement

Congressional insiders credit America’s powerful pro-Israel lobby for the rapid endorsement of the bills. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) held its annual policy conference June 2-4, in which it sent thousands of members to Capitol Hill to push for tougher measures against Iran. On its website, AIPAC endorses the resolutions as a way to ‘‘Stop Irans Nuclear Proliferation” and tells readers to lobby Congress to pass the bill.

AIPAC has been ramping up the rhetoric against Iran over the last 3 years delivering 9 issue memos to Congress in 2006, 17 in 2007 and in the first five months of 2008 has delivered no less than 11 issue memos to the Congress and Senate predominantly warning of Irans nuclear weapons involvement and support for terrorism.

The Resolutions put forward in the House and the Senate bear a resounding similarity to AIPAC analysis and Issue Memos in both its analysis and proposals even down to its individual components.

Proponents say the resolutions advocate constructive steps toward reducing the threat posed by Iran. “It is my hope that…this Congress will urge this and future administrations to lead the world in economically isolating Iran in real and substantial ways,” said Congressman Mike Pence(R-IN), who is the original cosponsor of the House resolution along with Gary Ackerman (D-NY), Chairman of the sub committee on Middle East and South Asia of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Foreign policy analysts worry that such unilateral sanctions make it harder for the US to win the cooperation of the international community on a more effective multilateral effort. In his online blog, Senior Fellow in the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies Ethan Chorin points out that some US allies seek the economic ties to Iran that these resolutions ban. “The Swiss have recently signed an MOU with Iran on gas imports; the Omanis are close to a firm deal (also) on gas imports from Iran; a limited-services joint Iranian-European bank just opened a branch on Kish Island,” he writes.

“These resolutions could severely escalate US-Iran tensions, experts say. Recalling the perception of the naval blockade of Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the international norms classifying a naval blockade an act of war, critics argue endorsement of these bills
would signal US intentions of war with Iran.”~

By the way, this IS an act of war.

Report this

By cyrena, June 19, 2008 at 12:00 pm Link to this comment


YES! This is an important point.

“..Actually it was called the Anglo Iranian oil company which later became BP…”

I’d forgotten that.

There are some similarities to the ARAMCO operation/set up. Arabian American Oil Company headquartered in Saudi Arabia. There’s an excellent book on that “America’s Kingdom: Mythmaking on the Saudi Oil Frontier” by Robert Vitalis. Actually, the construction of that enterprise was far, far worse, since it basically utilized the same slave/jim crow system that existed for so long right here in the good old US of A.

And yes, suppose it is all comic and sad at the same time, but at THIS time, it’s just downright fucking DEPRESSING!

These lunatics are poised to strike Iran at any moment. Never mind those 70 million people who haven’t bothered anybody.

Report this

By mrmb, June 19, 2008 at 9:40 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)


We are not talking about the ex soviet union. By the way to condone our criminal conduct because we were in competition with another mobster doesnt justify what we did.

Lets stay focused on US Iranian history and relations. Keep it simple man. Dont over exert your brain, you may end up frying whatever good cells are left.

By the way we do have a reputation on this planet for interfering in the internal afairs of other nations, overthrowing governements, assassinating leaders, instigating wars and civil wars, and etc….. to satisfy our greed.

This is exactly whats causing us trouble, and not what the morons on the right, the neocrazies of both stripes, and christian zionists claim: “they hate us because of who we are”.

We need a period of introspection in this country so we can honestly examine our role in this world, the good and the bad. Then move forward from there.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 19, 2008 at 7:17 am Link to this comment

Howard writes:

“The cease-fire between Israel and Hamas represents a historic accomplishment…”

More likely: the ceasefire is a fake, temporary peace overture by Israel, just like its recent pseudo-peace initiative with Syria, because Israel wants Syria and Hamas to be quiet right now, while the US bombs Iran to smithereens for Israel.

While this massive war crime against Iran is under way, Israel hopes that Hamas and Syria will not interfere or come to Iran’s aid, not wanting to compromise these “promising negotiations”.

After the mass slaughter of Iranians and the destruction of their infrastructure is complete, Israel will feel free to renege on those “promising negotiations” with Hamas and Syria.

These “peace overtures” and “ceasefires” are just more Israeli treachery and cynicism.

Report this

By Howard, June 19, 2008 at 7:07 am Link to this comment

Yes, Iran, the hand behind Hamas.  As well as other terrorists groups.

The cease-fire between Israel and Hamas represents a historic accomplishment for the jihadist forces most opposed to peace, and defeat for the Palestinians who might still have been Israel’s partners. Israel never mounted the rolling, multi-month operation in Gaza that the IDF had planned. Like Hizbullah in 2006, Hamas won because it did not lose. Its leaders still walked Gaza’s streets freely while children in Sderot and other Israeli border towns cowered in bomb shelters.

  In exchange for giving its word to halt rocket attacks and weapons smuggling, Hamas receives the right to monitor the main border crossings into Gaza and to enforce a truce in the West Bank. If quiet is maintained, then Israel will be required to accept a cease-fire in the West Bank as well. Hamas initiated a vicious war against Israel, destroyed and disrupted myriad Israeli lives, and has been rewarded with economic salvation and international prestige. Tellingly, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who once declared Hamas illegal, will soon travel to Gaza for reconciliation talks. Abbas’ move signifies the degree to which Hamas now dominates Palestinian politics. It testifies, moreover, to another Iranian triumph as the primary sponsor of Hamas.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 19, 2008 at 7:01 am Link to this comment

re:By Jenintina, June 18 at 10:12 pm:

Yeah, Jenintina, the work of a pro-Israel hack is never done, since making a moral or legal case for Israel that will stand up to scrutiny is kind of like trying to build a perpetual motion machine. Even harder is making the case for the US to go to war against Iran.

But hey, at least I made sure that Howard won’t try invoking the authority of Michael Axworthy again, in trying to make the case for belligerence against Iran.

I should correct myself. Howard never accepts or even remembers for very long when he’s been soundly refuted. Soon enough, he’ll be back with his dubious Axworthy material (which is itself second-hand, filtered through a pro-Israel website, with no link to an original), and I will have to refute him again, as if the whole conversation never happened.

Report this

By Jenintina, June 18, 2008 at 11:12 pm Link to this comment

Geez Howard…you wouldn’t be on AIPAC’s payroll would you? Or are you a volunteer?

Report this

By mrmb, June 18, 2008 at 10:30 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)


You are very welcome!!! Actually it was called the Anglo Iranian oil company which later became BP.

As you know Mossadegh was a nationalist liberal democrat who was accused by the war party of the time as being a communist.

Isnt it funny how once you start lying it never stops!!!! It seems like a disease that has completely infected our entire polity.

The depth of this problem is so pervasive when you realize that the propagandists of lies and half truths end up believing their own lies.

Its sad and comic at the same time!!!

Report this

By cyrena, June 18, 2008 at 8:19 pm Link to this comment

•  mrmb, June 18 at 9:00 am #
JBlack,  Dont be so offended my friend. But do get used it. By the way we are not a miniscule minority.
•  As far as US and Iran are concerned I suggest you look up your history books. That maybe beyond the intellectual ability of people like you since you seem to enjoy gingoistic simplification of issues in terms of good guys and bad guys so your pre historic brain is able to absorb it.
Thanks for the free bee history lesson. I doubt if it will ever sink in with JB, but it makes for an EXCELLENT lecture presentation for any course on Middle East History. I would only add that when the CIA overthrew Mossadegh, it was for the standard reasons..he was planning to nationalize Iran’s Oil industry. BP wasn’t having it, and neither was the US.

Anyway, thanks again. I hope folks appreciate that this IS a free bee that you were generous enough to provide.

Thanks to jack as well, for defining the REAL ‘terrorists’.

Report this

By WriterOnTheStorm, June 18, 2008 at 6:41 pm Link to this comment

Arabian Thoroughbred writes:

“... it nevertheless made me sad that, an otherwise respectable journalist, has been bought by the war-mongering camp to drum up the drums of war! I wish I would know what has gone wrong with Fisk!”

While I think you’re reading more than I would into Fisk’s article, I take your point. The problem is twofold. First, every member of society is subject to the effects of culturecentricity, which effectively renders their own culture invisible to them. It’s similar to the notion that no one can hear their own accent. Asking journalists to have the ability to step outside their own experience, their point of view, is holding them to a very high standard indeed. Usually the cultural blinders don’t come off until you’ve had extensive experience with another culture. So it’s up to those of us who have experienced other cultures to help journalists understand.

Second, even if Fisk’s experience is broad enough to understand how others view America, it would take a great deal of courage to say it. America mostly (and some of the posts herein bear this out) is not prepared to take such an honest look at itself (the same can be said of most other countries, so it’s not just Americans). A journalists who ventures into this territory will probably alienate most of their audience, and make some genuine enemies of the people who are pulling the strings. So there is very little professional upside to swimming so hard against the current. Gentle nudging is about as far as most journalist can go without risking their paycheck.

It’s left to us bloggers and commentators to call a spade a spade.

Report this

By Double U, June 18, 2008 at 4:41 pm Link to this comment

Geez, Howard… How embarrassing.

Report this

By Tammy Blue, June 18, 2008 at 12:39 pm Link to this comment

By Louise, June 18 at 11:43 am #

Brilliant post. Thank you.

Report this
amunaor's avatar

By amunaor, June 18, 2008 at 12:37 pm Link to this comment

It is the slaughter of another nation to quench the greedy gluttonous thirst of imperial madness. From this has evolved the demonization of our Middle Eastern, fellow human beings, manifested in the reactionary forces we now see them, intimidated, cowering into a corner, as the corporate media shakes its collective fist at the dirty militants who dare deprive their SUV owners from another drink of petrol, so as not to relinquish its clutch on the cycle of dependency they have perpetuated and maintained for so long.

Whose pool of oil will the great military beast seek to drink from next; what quarter of the globe will the insatiable corporate bottom-line seek to exploit, plunder and swindle after that?

As of Dec. 2007, Iran began trading oil in Euros!

As with Iraq, prior to the 2nd U.S. incursion, Saddam also dared to raise the ire of the Bush Corporate Oligarchs when he began to trade oil in Euros. And now, Iran’s similar infraction upon the dollar has once again given Bush an itchy trigger finger.

The U.S. had an opportunity to experiment and move to an alternative energy source in 1972, while there was still plenty of time. But, lucrative profits, fed by a system of dependency, gorged-bloated CEO bank accounts, simply stood in the way.

Abstract: the proposed Iranian Oil Bourse will accelerate the fall of the American Empire:

Peace, Best Wishes and Hope

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 18, 2008 at 11:19 am Link to this comment

Re: By cyrena, June 18 at 9:42 am:

Increased media coverage of antiwar protest will not help much if the media continues to present uncritically so much false “evidence” in favor of war.

If the media continue allowing pro-Israel, pro-war zealots to fill our TV screens and newspapers with false information and “expert” opinions about the dire “threat” posed by Iran to America, than even if the media DO cover the war protests better, the average person is going to think:

“Who are these crazy people who don’t want us to defend ourselves from nuclear-armed islamofascists? These protesters must be naïve, pacifist fools — or anti-Semites who hate America!”

Report this

By Arabian Thoroughbred, June 18, 2008 at 11:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

By WriterOnTheStorm, June 18 at 9:13 am #

Fisk asks, “what is it about threats?”, then proceeds in the very next sentence to proclaim Ahmadinejad the most crackpot president in the world. Well Mr Fisk, I submit that the answer to your query lies in the semantic invisible center of these two sentences.

It could never occur to you that your comment about Iran’s president is in itself a implied threat. We all know what America does to crackpot leaders, especially those who present an obstacle to ISRAOIL.
Thank you WriterOnTheStorm for your super post and for the depth of your reading into the implications of Fisk’s article. Though your post gave me great satisfaction about the fact that this nation has not gone totally bankrupt on people of free thinking and deep intellectual reasoning, it nevertheless made me sad that, an otherwise respectable journalist, has been bought by the war-mongering camp to drum up the drums of war! I wish I would know what has gone wrong with Fisk!

Report this

By 1California, June 18, 2008 at 11:07 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If Ahmadinejad sounds incomprehensible to many in the West, imagine how W sounds to people in the Muslim World (and elsewhere). He is often untranslatable.

Report this

By cyrena, June 18, 2008 at 10:42 am Link to this comment

Ed Harges,

Thanks so much for the response. Ya know, the question of the media came up in my own individual answer to this suggestion. In fact, I reminded that there had been ENORMOUS opposition to the assult on Iraq before it happened, and that here in the US, there was literally NO media coverage.

My colleague suggested that if these resolutions were adopted at the local levels, it would be next to impossible for the media NOT to cover it. I suspect there is some truth to that, and that it would be helpful because many Americans, (the ones who remain victims of the media blackout) DO get their information from their local media.

In the meantime..yes, I DO agree that the media is where the pressure has to be, and we can’t let up.

Thanks again for the response and the link.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 18, 2008 at 10:15 am Link to this comment

JBlack shows a total failure to distinguish between the US and Israel. Speaking the unpleasant truth about Israel is “blaming America first”.

Report this

By WriterOnTheStorm, June 18, 2008 at 10:13 am Link to this comment

Fisk asks, “what is it about threats?”, then proceeds in the very next sentence to proclaim Ahmadinejad the most crackpot president in the world. Well Mr Fisk, I submit that the answer to your query lies in the semantic invisible center of these two sentences.

It could never occur to you that your comment about Iran’s president is in itself a implied threat. We all know what America does to crackpot leaders, especially those who present an obstacle to ISRAOIL.

It is this kind of tacit threat, the kind that most Americans unfortunately find completely acceptable, that should be questioned. Self examination is not on the American menu. That’s why when it comes to foreign policy, this country has an obesity problem.

When our better journalists start calling other nation’s leaders names, it gives permission to dismiss that leader as a joke, and more importantly, to ignore what may be legitimate grievances. And such grievances, over time, might boil over to become aggression, if not all out war.

The old days, when the superpower could shut the enemies up with a well-placed smart bomb or two, are long gone. If you don’t listen to the grievances of others, and at least attempt to be an honest broker, what you get these days is drawn out asymmetrical warfare, You know, the kind that brings your proudest buildings down.

To be sure, there are plenty of genuine crackpot leaders around the world, but without a mechanism of criticism about our own conduct, we are lost in a political hall of mirrors, taking pot shots at imaginary bogeymen.

Report this

By mrmb, June 18, 2008 at 10:00 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)


Dont be so offended my friend. But do get used it. By the way we are not a miniscule minority.

As far as US and Iran are concerned I suggest you look up your history books. That maybe beyond the intellectual ability of people like you since you seem to enjoy gingoistic simplification of issues in terms of good guys and bad guys so your pre historic brain is able to absorb it.

Here is a few simple facts for people like you. Consider it a free bee.

1- We (USA-Britain) overthrew the Mossadegh government in 1953. Democratically elected, and very popular.

2- We brought the Shah back from exile and imposed him on the Iranians.

3- In order to facilitate his rule we (US-Britain-Israel) helped create SAVAK. One of the most notorious security services ever. SAVAK tortured, assassinated and murdered thousands of Iranians with CIA and MOSSAD support and complicity.

4- We turned SAVAK into a power house to the point that SAVAK used to conduct training classess for torturers from Chile, South Korea, South Africa, Philipines and others under the watchfull eyes and complete guidance of the CIA and MOSSAD.

5- When the Iranians demonstrated against these conditions and a lot more we supported the Shah in guuning down unarmed demonstrators and more.

Thats just a few things that I wanna bring up so you actually feel proud of being an AMERICAN. I know you are. People like you have no moral compass, you are lost souls walking around acting like supreme beings.

So, when the revolution came and the Iranians saw the same pattern of behaviour from us they stormed our embassy. WOW, gees, an act of war. Such cowardice!!!

Obviously our highly moral political leaders decided to punish the Iraninas by conducting assassination campaigns, coup plots and when all failed we pulled an ACE out of our sleeves: SADDAM.

We intigated SADDAM into attacking Iran, we supported him in ways that the general public has yet to find out.

When you put facts next to each other you will see that USA has a lot of blood on its hands. No denying that.

Thats why we are hated. Thats why our policies will continue to fail and we will pay a heavy price. Thats why morons like king george continue to lie and kill.

Report this

By Louise, June 18, 2008 at 9:43 am Link to this comment

Sometimes the chip on the shoulder becomes so cumbersome that the person crying, “I am always being picked on,” has to do something outrageous, so they really will get picked on, thereby justifying the cumbersome chip.

The “poor me” mentality rarely looks for anything else. And when that complex becomes the entire history of an entire culture, it doesn’t take much to set them off. Any excuse will do. Keep the attacks, real or imagined coming, so the self-justification for stepping beyond the bounds of rational behavior are justified.

We can argue from now till the next ice age about who started it, but how about this, who’s got the guts to stop it? Anybody?

Just in case, a good beginning might be a level of humility acknowledging the worlds effort to solve their problems, by giving them their own place, no questions asked. And then a little bit of effort from those who were given what belonged to someone else in an effort to ease their pain, might be called for. To actually try to make peace with the ones who had so much taken from them might be a nice start. I really don’t care what their books say. That ancient world is long gone and this world is the one we have to live in, so gratitude and effort and getting rid of that obnoxious chip on the shoulder would be nice.

Right now, it seems like the chip rules supreme and the, “I can make scarier threats than you can,” is the chosen method of warfare, and the immaturity and stupidity that keeps this insanity alive could be laughable except one of the threat givers has nuclear bombs, and I am not talking about Iran ... since they have none!

And while I’m on the subject, if I were surrounded by, nuts who guide government policy by tribal leader, like Pakistan and Afghanistan and Israel. And a nation being ruled by force by another nation with a major complex, like the US rules in Iraq. And all of those nations had the nuclear bomb and I didn’t, I suspect I might want to get one, or at least pretend I had one. But I know where that got Saddam, and since I don’t have one, I suspect I might be dumb enough, or scarred enough to think using threats of force might keep all those nuke-havers away.

And like I said, this would be laughable were it not for the insanity that guides the politics in the nations that do have the bomb. There are far too many of them looking for an excuse to set one off.

Report this

By jack, June 18, 2008 at 9:38 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

RE: By JBlack, June 18 at 5:36 am #
On these post Iran is the hero and the United States is the terrorist?

What’s generally missed in all the hysteria around the Global War Of Terror is that it’s not being run by any nation, religious faction or ethnicity. The chaos threatening us all is orchestrated by a cabal of finance oligarchs who benefit immensely from it.

These interests, the New World Oligarchy, if you will, hold no allegiance to any nations, peoples or cultural traditions. To them we are all cannon fodder. The US Military no longer servers the US Citizenry, it is directed by the New World Oligarchy. The massive, extended black-op/psy-op, we call the Global War Of Terror, we’re all paying for, but is run by the same ruthless cartel. They own Congress and the POTUS…they get everything they want.

This is that to which we should be paying attention, not the cultural hatred it instils.

Report this

By yours trulyj, June 18, 2008 at 5:49 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Justice For The Palestinians + Ending The Iraq War + Negotiations With Iran + Turning Things Around Here At Home + Impeachment = What?

Peace on earth and goodwill to all living beings, that’s what.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 18, 2008 at 5:21 am Link to this comment


Regarding the city resolution: it certainly couldn’t hurt.

But I’ve seen a more recent suggestion, from Gareth Porter, that comes at it from a different angle.

He says (paraphrasing) that “I used to say, call your congressman, but now I think that’s not effective as long as the media keep ‘reporting’ the lies about Iran and ignoring the danger of war.” It’s the media that maintain the information bubble that makes antiwar activists seem like cranks. He says that we need to attack the media directly. Call, write, and otherwise bother the hell out of every media outlet you can think of, often and loudly; threat to boycott, whatever.

Stop letting the media get away with it without at least being bombarded with complaints. Make it unpleasant for them to continue overplaying the “threat” from Iran, uncritically passing on Israeli propaganda, and underplaying the likelihood of a new war and the consequences of this war for the US should it start.


[Historian and investigative reporter Gareth Porter, who writes for UPI,, the Huffington Post, the American Prospect, etc., has published extensive ly on the danger of a US-Israeli assault on Iran. Here’s a link to the interview (the anti-media activism suggestion is toward the end:]

Report this

By Howard, June 18, 2008 at 4:10 am Link to this comment

“Terrorists Twins” ?  Certainly Iran and Syria fill the bill !

They have funded, backed, encouraged, equipped with military hardware ad missles the abominal group called Hezballah and thus destroyed Lebanon as we know it. Christian maronites will be eradicated in that country.

These Twins of Terror send agents, anarchists, and terrorists into Iraq to encourage and enhance and promote the so-called -insurgency. Have been the cause of many American deaths.

What a pair they are.

Report this

By Xtina, June 18, 2008 at 1:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I love you, Robert Fisk, one of the people of this world I love and admire.  Kudos to you.

Report this

By cyrena, June 17, 2008 at 11:53 pm Link to this comment

Part I of an idea/suggestion

I’ve cross posted this on another thread, addressing the impeachment actions, and what might be accomplished at the local levels. I think it applies here, because there SHOULD be a genuine concern that the Terrorist Twins, (US and Israel) have every intention of attacking Iran, and it would be the end of the world as we know it. One can call Ahmadinejad a crackpot if one so chooses. I find him far, far, far, saner than the terrorists (Dick Bush) who have already proven themselves to be sociopaths that embody the epitome of evil. We see what they have ALREADY DONE to Iraq. How can anyone doubt that they wouldn’t do the same to Iran, especially when it’s been part of the plan for just as long?

Dear All,

In speaking to the whole subject of initiating a progressive movement, (which can ONLY happen at the grass roots level which means the LOCAL level, and we’ve talked about that before) I thought I’d offer this note that I received via email, from another Truthdig reader and occasional poster. The idea is taken from an article by Scott Ritter that many of you may have read, (it is still accessible and the link is provided). In this case, it is intended to hopefully prevent what most of us feel certain is a long ago planned attack on Iran, by this very same Cabal intent on continuing the destabilization of the entire Middle East Region.

It could however, serve the additional purpose of establishing a working body of citizens involved in creating a movement that might address exactly what we’ve been speaking to on this thread. My personal feeling is that the movement attached to the efforts to elect Barack Obama has already begun this, but I’d like to hear him and/or his supporters take some initiative in addressing this very urgent issue as well…to PREVENT it. Let us know what you think.


After reading the Scott Ritter article and a lot of the comments, it seemed it might be a good idea to have the Chicago Resolution Against War in Iran in some coherent form.

I am here copying that for your files and so that there is a copy that exists that we might be able to do something with towards effecting some resistance to the Bush Administration.  Ritter suggest that this resolution be circulated to every city possible and encouraged to adopt a similar resolution. 

Your opinion:  What good could this do?  What else can we do to stop the Bush administration form declaring a second illegal war?

Report this

By cyrena, June 17, 2008 at 11:52 pm Link to this comment

Part 2 of an idea/suggestion

As copied from the Scott Ritter column article Taking a Stand Against War, Truthdig, May 12, 2008

Resolution For The Chicago City Council Opposing War On Iran

“WHEREAS, The Bush Administration and its Congressional allies are engaging in a systematic campaign to convince the American people that the Islamic Republic of Iran poses an imminent threat to the American nation, American troops in the Middle East and U.S. allies.”

“WHEREAS, This campaign bears a strong resemblance to that waged during the lead-up to the Iraq War and occupation, with the use of unreliable sources, exaggerated threat assessments, the selective use of information, unsubstantiated accusations about Iran’s nuclear program and its supply of weapons to Iraqi forces as centerpieces of their case to the American people for aggressive action against Iran.”

“WHEREAS, Iran has not threatened to attack the United States, and no compelling evidence has been presented that Iran poses a real and imminent threat to the security and safety of the United States that would justify an unprovoked unilateral pre-emptive military attack.”

“WHEREAS, We support the people of Iran who are struggling for freedom and democracy, and nothing herein should be construed as supportive of their government, the Islamic Republic of Iran, but a unilateral, pre-emptive U.S. military attack on Iran could well prove counterproductive to the cause of promoting freedom and democracy in that country.

“WHEREAS, A 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), representing the consensus view [of] all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, concluded that Iran froze its nuclear weapons program in 2003, and an earlier NIE concluded that Iran’s involvement in Iraq “is not likely to be a major driver of violence there.”

“WHEREAS, an attack on Iran is likely to cause untold thousands of American and Iranian casualties, lead to major economic dislocations, and threaten a much wider and more disastrous war in the Middle East.”

“WHEREAS, a pre-emptive U.S. military attack on Iran would violate international law and our commitments under the U.N. Charter and further isolate the U.S. from the rest of the world.”

“WHEREAS, An attack on Iran is likely to inflame hatred for the U.S. in the Middle East and elsewhere, inspire terrorism, and lessen the security of Americans in Chicago and worldwide.”

“WHEREAS, The Iraq war and occupation has already cost the lives of over 4,000 American soldiers, the maiming and wounding of over 38,000 American soldiers, the death and maiming of over one million Iraqi civilians.”

“WHEREAS, According to the nonpartisan National Priorities Project, the Iraq War and occupation has cost American taxpayers more than $500 billion, the citizens of Chicago nearly $5.2 billion, and the citizens of each of Chicago’s 50 wards an average of $104 million, and

“WHEREAS, Any conflict with Iran is likely to incur far greater costs and divert more precious national resources away from critical human needs in Chicago and its 50 wards.”


So, anybody up for getting something like this to be adopted by your City Councils?

I’m going to try to put this on the International Forum that is part of the Obama campaign site. I just have to figure out how. I can’t remember how I’ve done it in the past. But, I still get messages from the forum, so somebody should be able to guide me through the process.

Let us know what you think.

Report this

By richard nemo, June 17, 2008 at 11:40 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

They sound like americans. Bomb, bomb, bomb iran! Oh, and all options are on the table. Let us not forget ‘AXIS OF EVIL.”

Humans are nuts. What is revealing about that.

R. nemo.

Report this

By Tammy Blue, June 17, 2008 at 9:33 pm Link to this comment

Arabian Thoroughbred

Could not agree more: “I am even sadly surprised how, on a topic of rhetorical threats, Fisk ignored Bush and Blair; two most evil individuals who raised ugly rhetorical threats, false propaganda, weapons of mass deceptions and lies to levels unprecedented in modern human history!”

Thank you for pointing out something so obvious that we are left to wonder if the last bit of fighting in Beirut hasn’t caused RF to jump the shark.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, June 17, 2008 at 8:47 pm Link to this comment

There is a central theme here which emerges time and again.  Many, many…many leaders are psychotic, shoot off their mouths and could care less for their compatriots.  This is a theme which travels throughout the world and has been illuminated through the ages by one psycho after another.  Look what our government has done especially in what one might consider modern history.  Iran is just as bad.  Iraq was terrible.  Israel has no shame. Of course we could go on and on.

It also always emerges that ALL nutty leaders are entwined in the affairs of each other. It’s like going to the sleaziest, most despicable grease-laden establishment you could imagine and trying to find the “good guy/girl” among the filth.  It would be safe to say that if one existed.. this one would be called a victim.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 17, 2008 at 7:40 pm Link to this comment

Howard writes: “...advocacy for Israel is steeped in history.”

Howard, everybody’s steeping in history, all the time. We’re all in the same world, and we all, ultimately, go way, way back — to whatever the beginning was. Cut this arrogant ethnocentric crap about how your bag’s been sitting in the hot water longer than anybody else’s bag. Whoop-dee-doo, Howard. Whoop-dee-doo.

Report this

By Howard, June 17, 2008 at 6:30 pm Link to this comment

Ah, yes, those darn Zionists.  Imagine, they been around so long how can you disparage them and no one else ?

Such aspersions I see cast against them here.

But I suspect their advocacy for Israel is steeped in history.  Good thing, too. More power to ‘em.

Report this

By mrmb, June 17, 2008 at 5:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As usual Mr. Fisk is busy muddying the water. Perhaps he is confused.

I am surprised that he doesnt bother reading the farsi text of Ahmadinejad’s speeches. If he cant read farsi I suspect there are plenty in Lebanon that can help him with that. Or better yet he should travel to Iran and do a bit of research. Maybe thats good old journalism that seem to be dead these days and maybe I am expecting too much of Fisk.

Its much easier to repeat the bs we are fed everyday by the powers to be so Mr. Fisk can get a piece out and get paid.

As far as Howard is concerned I dont think he gets it and I dont blame him either.
Funny how things work. Those who are liars, thiefs and murderers and have had sole access to the mass media in the western world for over 40 years to say what they like in order to twist the truth, are finding it hard that they have been exposed and a good chunk of the public dont buy their lies any longer.

The level of absurdity is repugnant and the zionists dont seem to understand that when the truth comes out its the end of them.

Thats the lesson of history Howard, go spin it!!!!

Report this

By Arabian Thoroughbred, June 17, 2008 at 3:59 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

By Howard, June 17 at 10:37 am #

Michael Axworthy, who served as the Head of the Iran Section of Britain’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office, notes that when the slogan “Israel must be wiped off the map” appeared “draped over missiles in military parades, that meaning was pretty clear.”
Get a life Howard, and acquire some real knowledge and common sense which are in much short supply with you!

Quoting an official in colonial Britain does not make it newsworthy to be trusted. Remember, this is the same colonial entity officials who lied again and again and provided false misleading information, which they passed to colonial US officials to mislead them into believing false information about Iraq.

Officials in colonial Britain, colonial US and colonial Israel cannot ever be trusted. Theirs are only plots, weapons of mass deception and warmongering, and fishing in troubled waters! Period!

Humor! My access code for this message is “girl25,” something I take as a signal to go on a fun trip with a hot 25-year old and forget for a while to posting in answer to empty propaganda. When I come back from my honeymoon, I will let you know which side of the barrel I opened first! If you don’t know the joke, request a posting and I will oblige!

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 17, 2008 at 1:40 pm Link to this comment

OK, so Axworthy is “all nonsense and falsehoods”? Then stop invoking his authority, Howard.

[BTW, I called him “Axelworthy” at one point; sorry for the typo.]

And Howard: you don’t write much of your own stuff or do much of your own thinking. It’s really not very respectful to those of us who make the effort, even when we use quoted material, to engage ourselves fully. You hardly scratch the surface of things.

Report this

By Howard, June 17, 2008 at 1:12 pm Link to this comment

Complete nonsense and falsehoods. 

No instigation and there would be no response by Israel.

Witness the daily rockets and missles that are rained on Israel.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 17, 2008 at 1:09 pm Link to this comment

Howard cites Michael Axworthy, but Axelworthy is certainly no supporter of the Israeli agenda against Iran.

I followed the link (as usual, H. pasted it all from somebody else, but at least he linked. Thanks, H., for that much.) The pro-Israel site doesn’t give a direct source or link for the Axworthy material, so it’s hard to tell how much is directly what he said and how much is their interpretation.

But I did find a big article on Iran by Axworthy in Prospect magazine. And he certainly doesn’t support the alarmist view of Iran favored by Israel. Some excerpts and a link:

(1) [Head of the article:] The west usually gets Iran wrong. Talk of air strikes and sanctions over Iran’s nuclear programme suggests we are continuing to do so

[Howard, notice that right at the start, he is expressing disapproval  of the current “talk of air strikes and sanctions” against Iran — exactly the opposite of your view. The gist of the article is, “Let’s stop bullying Iran”.]

(2)[After summarizing the history of Western blunders regarding Iran, he writes:] Is there a message in this for the nuclear crisis? Might it not be better to accept the inevitable earlier rather than later?.... It is quite rational for the Iranians to want their own nuclear deterrent.

[not exactly the McCain/Lieberman position, is it Howard?]

(3) [He doesn’t seem alarmed about Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric, but does express some sympathy for Israel’s concern — without at all endorsing any sort of violent action against Iran:] Israeli concern at the prospect of a nuclear Iran is understandable. From a distance, we can take President Ahmadinejad’s statements about Israel and the Holocaust as empty rhetoric. Up close, the Israelis have to take them more seriously.

(4) [He doesn’t think much of the “We should bomb them to help the liberals overthrow the mullahs” theory:] So where does this leave the west? Some commentators have suggested that Iran is in a pre-revolutionary situation, and that all that is necessary to tip things over the edge is a nudge from air strikes or economic sanctions, after which the Iranian people will rise up and depose the mullahs. But this is rather like proposing to shake up a kaleidoscope in the hope of getting a Titian.

(5) [He advocates full diplomatic relations between the US and Iran right away:] The US should offer direct talks to resolve the problem, and the resumption of full US/Iran diplomatic relations, not as a bonbon for good behaviour, but in a mature way, recognising the true purpose of diplomacy: authoritative, direct communication in difficult circumstances. American diplomats should offer resolution of outstanding debt problems and other disputes, in order to show the Iranian people that they are doing everything possible to resolve the problem with the hardline regime.

(6) [He advocates letting Iran have an “AUTONOMOUS” nuclear energy program — that means LETTING THEM ENRICH THEIR OWN URANIUM, Howard:] The US government could attempt to negotiate initially on the basis of allowing the Iranians an autonomous, peaceful nuclear programme, subject to UN monitoring at whatever level necessary to ensure nuclear weapons cannot be developed.

(7) [Even more strongly, he says again: DON’T BOMB AND DON’T THREATEN:[I]... it could only do good for the US to be seen to be talking to a major Islamic country to resolve a problem, rather than threatening or bombing it…. Whatever we do about their nuclear programme now, it makes sense to avoid action that would ensure the enmity of the Iranian people over that period. And the chances of a friendly government eventually emerging there are much higher if we avoid attempting to bully them….[/II]

Report this

By jack, June 17, 2008 at 12:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Everyone gets carried away by terrorism - horribly thing indeed - but I’ll remind you that there is a ton of evidence to support the analysis that the Global War Of Terror is GLADIO for the Middle East and that Islamofascism is the bogyman to replace Monolithic Communism for our time.

Keeping the world at war is very good business for a lot of already very rich interests - keeping people inhabiting resource-rich lands in a perpetual state of failed nationhood is a rewarding endeavor to those very same interests.

2 things to never forget:

1. “Deception is a state of mind and the mind of the state.” - James Jesus Angelton - Director of CIA Counter Intelligence (1954-74)

2. “The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” - William Colby - Director of the CIA (1973-76)

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 17, 2008 at 11:51 am Link to this comment

(1) That there may be reason to bring Ahmadinejad to justice for whatever reason is no justification for the devastating, unrpovoked, and unnecessary war of destruction which the US and Israel plan to prosecute against Iran beofre Bush leaves office.

(2) According to human rights organizations including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and Israel’s own B’tselem, there is ample justification to bring many of Israel’s leaders to justice before international courts for numerous gross war crimes and crimes against humanity, crimes that go light years beyond verbal incitement and include the most viciousl cruelties of which human beings are capable, inflicted on a massive scale for many years and continuing to this very moment.

Report this

By Howard, June 17, 2008 at 11:37 am Link to this comment

Michael Axworthy, who served as the Head of the Iran Section of Britain’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office, notes that when the slogan “Israel must be wiped off the map” appeared “draped over missiles in military parades, that meaning was pretty clear.”

There is an ample legal basis for the prosecution of Ahmadinejad in the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court for direct and public incitement to commit genocide and crimes against humanity.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 17, 2008 at 10:58 am Link to this comment

The problem with Israel lobby’s new talking points about what Ahmadinejad really means is that we don’t trust them any more, since the pro-Israel propagandists clearly lied to us before about that “wiping off the map” remark.

Israel simply doesn’t have our trust any more, when it comes to their Zionist “experts” and their interpretations of what Ahmadinejad says and has the power to do. So now they are essentially saying, “Well, OK, so maybe in that particular case he didn’t clearly threaten the physical annihilation of Israel, but TRUST us!  If you look at his entire history of verbal utterances, which we have conveniently translated and summarized for you, he REALLY means [blah blah blah].”

In the meantime, Israel IS threatening Iran, in plain English, and DOES have the capacity (through its leverage with the US) to annihilate Iran, or at the very least to kill many tens or hundreds of thousands of people and utterly destroy Iran’s infrastructure. And unlike Iran. Israel DOES have a recent track record of launching massive, murderous assaults against its neighbors (ask the Lebanese).

Report this

By Howard, June 17, 2008 at 10:43 am Link to this comment

Over the past several years, Iranian leaders - most prominently, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - have made numerous statements calling for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people. While certain experts have interpreted these statements to be simple expressions of dissatisfaction with the current Israeli government and its policies, in reality, the intent behind Ahmadinejad’s language and that of others is clear.

What emerges from a comprehensive analysis of what Ahmadinejad actually said - and how it has been interpreted in Iran - is that the Iranian president was not just calling for “regime change” in Jerusalem, but rather the actual physical destruction of the State of Israel. When Ahmadinejad punctuates his speech with “Death to Israel” (marg bar Esraiil), this is no longer open to various interpretations.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 17, 2008 at 10:27 am Link to this comment

Fisk dangerously trivializes Israel’s threats against Iran by suggesting that they are only empty posturing and bluster. Fisk writes:

“Mofaz was maybe trying to walk tall beside the increasingly powerless Ehud Olmert, or maybe he was just trying to make up for having been a spectacularly unsuccessful chief of staff in his previous incarnation.”

On the contrary, Mofaz was not just posturing. He was spilling the beans. The beans are real. Mofaz was guilty only of indiscretion here, since the Israelis and Bush/Cheney don’t want the US public too get too alarmed about this and possibly rise up to stop it before it becomes a fait accompli.

Israel’s threats of a devastating (probably US-executed) attack against Iran are serious, credible, and near-term. Historian and investigative reporter Gareth Porter, who writes for UPI,, the Huffington Post, the American Prospect, etc., has published extensive evidence of this. Now he is saying there is fresh reason to be alarmed, as a named former administration insider has recently openly confirmed, on the record, that these threats are not mere bluster (or psy-ops) at all.

Porter says that the remaining 6 months of the Bush administration are an extremely dangerous time, because these threats against Iran are in dead earnest. In fact, he believes that Cheney is essentially deranged and doesn’t care about anything but showing the world “who’s boss” by doing grievous harm to Iran, damn the consequences for the rest of us.

Here is a link to Scott Horton’s recent interview with Porter. Please listen to this; it is well worth your time:

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 17, 2008 at 9:48 am Link to this comment

Please see my (unregistered) post below.

Report this

By dihey, June 17, 2008 at 9:17 am Link to this comment

Speaking about “drilling”, to understand why Iran refuses to accept Europe’s “nuclear assistance package” one must realize:
1. The notion that “Iran does not need to go nuclear because the country is awash with oil” is abject nonsense. The Iranian oil fields are old and tottering and are only kept alive with injections of…..billions of cubic feet of natural gas! Iran needs to develop alternative sources of energy production.
2. A “nuclear assistance package” can always be used as blackmail to bring about “regime change”.

Report this

By Gfernandez, June 17, 2008 at 7:43 am Link to this comment

that Ahmadinejad was quoting Ayatollah Khomeini in a gistorical context. Sheer can really be suspect at times. He is the editor of this site and constantly has his articles as the lead articles along with the constant promotion of his books. dont know what to make of the guy. I do know that Nader handed him his balls in their recent debate.

Report this

By foo, June 17, 2008 at 7:16 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I should just say that what Ahmadinejad said was not annihilation of Israel as you are talking about. He said an end to the Israeli regime must happen very much similar to what happened to the Soviet Union regime. The media is just mistranslating his words.

Don’t get me wrong. I totally think that Ahmadinejad is wrong and the Israeli regime should stay as it is, but the media should report the truth not propaganda.

Report this

By Ed Harges, June 17, 2008 at 6:20 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ahmadinejad never threatened any sort of violence against Israel. He predicted that its regime (i.e., its governmental establishment) would fall because of its own faults, citing among several examples the former Soviet Union, South Africa, and even pre-revolutionary Iran. 

From his inclusion of these examples, you can see that he was not threatening to invade or bomb or “nuke” Israel, or to do anything of the sort.

Look at these examples: the Soviet Union, Russia, and Iran. Was any of these countries physically annihilated when their odious regimes changed? Did anyone nuke them? Did the South African regime end because some external power invaded the place, or bombed it, or exterminated all the ethnic South Africans in a new Holocaust™? Was Iran “wiped off the map”? Did its regime end with the conquest, occupation, or obliteration through a military aggression by a foreign power? Did an enemy state terminate the Soviet Union by incinerating the Russians?

Ahmadinejad was referring to a sermon by Ayatollah Khomeini in which Khomeini was saying that, one way or another, the worst governments fall because they are not sustainable. Ahmadinejad’s remarks were not friendly, but neither were they threats — and certainly it is misleading to compare them as being in anyway symmetrical with Israel’s very real, concrete, and immediate threats of violence against Iran.

Report this

By moineau, June 17, 2008 at 1:43 am Link to this comment

spoken as a true witness of senseless bloodshed! salut, m fiske, je suis à toi!

from me to you a reflexive truth,
a double-edgèd sword:
the obscurist weapons are
the languages of earth.

they bury simple pleasures
with complex, wordy games,
recreating basic life in
strains of tyranny.

and conjugate with every cause
from love to god to gold,
they stand as guards to prison,
as warriors to war.

when in love the words run dry,
look upon your lover:
she is at last her premiere self
without the subtle curtain.

laura tattoo 6/6/80

Report this

By jack, June 17, 2008 at 12:29 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

RE: And it was only 26 years ago, I recall, that Menachem Begin, then the Israeli prime minister, announced that he was going to “root out the evil weed of terror” from Lebanon.

Wasn’t he involved in the King David Hotel bombing, later hung on Palestinians? All Middle East terror and threats are a virtual rerun of GLADIO…look it up.

Report this
amunaor's avatar

By amunaor, June 16, 2008 at 11:06 pm Link to this comment

A little lopsided!

What about the other voices that are consistently squelched by the Israel party of war, the Jews against Zionism, and Palestinians who are also semetic people.

The following video is a bit dated now, but still relevant-

Ahmadinejad Meeting With Anti-Zionist Jews:

Sometimes things are not quite as they appear to be when only one side of the coin is constantly exposed.

It is critical that these folks be brought into the fold and their voices heard. But, I guess peace is an enemy to the war industry.

Peace, Best Wishes and Hope

Report this

By Arabian Thoroughbred, June 16, 2008 at 9:21 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Yes, CorkExaminer, I read you article “Why Fisk is Wrong about Ahmadinejad” after reading Fisk’s. And I have to say that I concur with yours.

Though I am traditionally an admirer of Fisk and his known criticism of the colonialist policies of Israel, Britain and America, in this article, particularly the part on Ahmadinejad, he is totally off the mark. It seems to me he has a change of heart based on new agenda, or he has grown too old an cynical that he really doesn’t know what he is talking about.

Though I am a Sunni Muslim who takes his religion seriously, on the political level I am an admirer of Ahmadinejad, the Shi’ite. I wish there are in the majority Sunni world two or three who have the courage of Ahmadinejad.

As for Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric against Israel and his challenge to Bush, it is just a reflection of the rhetoric on the part of his enemies. His heated rhetoric against Israel and official America is justified on the basis of all the historical wrongs and evils these two entities committed against the people of Iran.

I am even sadly surprised how, on a topic of rhetorical threats, Fisk ignored Bush and Blair; two most evil individuals who raised ugly rhetorical threats, false propaganda, weapons of mass deceptions and lies to levels unprecedented in modern human history!

Report this

By john from ojai, June 16, 2008 at 9:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Fisk incorrectly claims 3 times that Ahmadinajad threatened to wipe Israel off the map.It’s unfortunate that war emotions are heated up by this false statement especially when they’re followed by name calling. This does nothing for the cause of reasoned conflict resolution and peace.

Ahmadinejad was quoting Ayatollah Khomeni and the direct quotation from Farsi is “this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the pages of time”. Nothing about maps or annihilation or Israel. Since we’re talking about regime change, most Americans believe that the regime occupying Washington should vanish from the pages of time. Hopefully this will happen in the November elections.Check

Report this

By jackpine savage, June 16, 2008 at 8:31 pm Link to this comment

Now that was a piece of writing.

My answer to why the Middle East has a propensity for threats and warnings is, in one word: Abraham.  The residents of that particular parcel of land act like irked children fighting for their Father’s attention in the universal backseat.

And then the clouds parted to reveal a Monty Python-esque cardboard cutout of God, who bellows, “If you god damned kids don’t knock it off right now I’m going to turn this car around…Disneyland isn’t worth this aggravation.” 

Of course, the middle sibling is fine with that because he dreams about the great, cleansing vengeance of the theological U-turn towards home.

Report this

By CorkExaminer, June 16, 2008 at 7:49 pm Link to this comment

I am a tremendous fan of Fisk’s and I so agree with most of this article, but I think Fisk falls into a horrible cliched trap at the end of the article (it was too tempting), a narrative carefully prepared those usually in the Fisk sights.

I have written an article looking at what Ahmadinejad has been about, and why he is by no means as mad as he is too often painted.  Check out Why Fisk is Wrong about Ahmadinejad.

Stephen Walt has also criticized the demonising of Ahmadinejad (there is of course plenty to criticize without moving beyond it) and I have answered that too in Goldberg is also Wrong on Ahmadinejad.

Report this

By YIKES, June 16, 2008 at 7:26 pm Link to this comment

why must we take it seriously at all? “Israel warns” has become one of the great clichés

Because they bomb children is my knee jerk answer.

Report this
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook