Are there always two sides to any story? Almost always – yes!
In the case of Iran and its claimed threat to the Middle East stability, predominantly a claim by Israel, there is significant evidence and the force of logic to support a reasonable defence of Iran’s relative innocence in the trouble-making area.
On the other hand, Israel and its alliances have a well-documented track record of serious interference in other countries. A record starkly contrasting with Iran, except when Western interference within Iran, together with an Iraqi alliance (with the US), created a war attempting to gain permanent control of Iran.
This article posted by SOTT presents an impressive picture of the other side of the publicly propagated propaganda. From Merlin Miller, Veterans Today:
I contemplate my recent trip to the Islamic Republic of Iran and
ask myself who wants war between America and Iran. I quickly surmise that it is not the American people, nor the Iranian people, but globalists (international bankers and their multinational beneficiaries). They control Israel, the American media and most of our politicians…and by extension our foreign policy.
My journey to this exotic and little understood land began with an invitation to “New Horizon – The First International Independent Filmmakers Festival”. It was a conference and festival held in Tehran from September 2nd through September 7th. Filmmakers and intellectuals from around the world attended. It was one of the most stimulating experiences that I have ever had and an effective bridge between diverse cultures and perspectives – with the purpose of promoting truth, justice, liberty, and peace.
This initiative was undertaken, not by America or other world leaders, but by a country unfairly besieged with sanctions and threats of war. My observations were in stark contrast to the perceptions of most Americans. What I experienced was a devout country with a love of God, family, and nation – and an uncompromising respect for the noblest of human endeavors.
As I write this, a giant, beautiful book, Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, lies next to me. Khayyam’s wonderful poems have survived the test of time and are a testament to the normally peaceful spirit of the Persian people. This treasure was given to me by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Inside its back cover, he inscribed the following for me (transcribed from Farsi):
“In the name of God who loves human beings.
My dear brother:
I, you, we and all of us are pursuing truth and happiness for human beings, which is unfortunately a victim of world powers.
This is a historical opportunity to undermine all inhuman relations and put an end to prejudices, which have questioned the truths and separates them, to build a new beautiful world based on love, justice and beauty.
This is a historical and certainly achievable objective. It only needs our hands, minds and hearts to join each other.
I pray Great God to bless you, who love humanity and wish success for all. I hope to meet you in a better future.(signed)
M. Ahmadinejad
September 8, 2012″I found President Ahmadinejad to be a humble man with a firm handshake and intense, intelligent eyes. Despite his courteous and dignified bearing, he has been regularly berated, and routinely misrepresented, by a controlled western media. Is their demonization justified, or has he been targeted as the lone political figure standing against Zionist powers? This is my attempt to represent truths, such that the world might have a better understanding of Iran, its people, and its leadership.
The Iranian people are similar to Europeans in appearance…a beautiful people, poised and kind. Their women wear clothing which modestly cover them, but in elegant fashion and with serene faces that are usually exposed. They return smiles and are not treated as second class citizens, as we have been conditioned to believe. In fact, they outnumber men in higher education enrollments. There is no profanity and women are safe on any Tehran street – at any time of day or night. The influences of western civilization have not been totally removed, but the Iranians resist the decadence of cultural-Marxism. I attribute this largely to their faith and love of family. I was surprised to discover that the Islamic faith actually honors Jesus and Christianity. However, through Zionist media control, policy dictates, and other manipulations, the Christian world is incessantly convinced that Muslims should be our enemies and that we should be theirs.
Muslims look with jaundiced eye upon the outrageous media lies and perpetual assaults on their faith and culture. Hollywood’s promotion of twisted films can provoke extremist reactions, and we are then led to believe that Muslims are all radicals. We never question the bizarre promotion of these divisive, Zionist inspired productions, or the actions of multinational interests in the internal affairs of sovereign Islamic nations. Were we to look honestly at the many false portrayals, we would see remarkable similarities to how our Christian communities have also been assaulted – increasingly with contempt and disrespect by these same Zionist and Cultural Marxist propagandists. They seek a globalist new world order – devoid of the diversity and freedoms associated with independent nation states.
As I wandered from the festival grounds to meet people on the streets, I found them to be most helpful and without animosity – despite my obvious American nationality. I enjoyed their exotic food and came to appreciate the craftsmanship of their products. The only negative sensation that I had was in witnessing the mad house traffic situation in Tehran. A city of 15 million, it has grown faster that it’s infrastructure. Despite this, the city is thriving with new construction and beautiful parks and monuments – which reflect a noble and accomplished people. The Iranians seemingly love Americans, but are rightly concerned and critical of our irrational and invasive government policies. The common response seems to be “why would your country want to attack us?”
The current condemnation of Iran is supposedly due to the possibility that they may develop nuclear weapons. We should all work for a world free from nuclear threat, but the sovereignty of nations must also be respected. Iran is signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has opened their facilities for inspection, declaring their interest is for energy development only. No evidence to the contrary has been shown, and Iran’s Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei condemns nuclear weaponry – actually declaring a “Fatwa” against them – as it is contrary to their nation’s faith. However, Israel, their chief accuser (and architect behind the campaign to falsely accuse Iraq of possessing “weapons of mass destruction”), is believed to possess over 300 nuclear weapons. Israel is not signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has no intention of sharing information or opening their facilities for inspection – yet America continues to march to their fanatical war drums against others. Why is there no pressure on Israel to meet the same standards and why are we imposing “sanctions” against a nation that has done us no wrong? It is a preliminary act of war, and only imposed because Israeli lobbies demand it of our lap-dog politicians, who incredibly serve Zionist interests rather than the American people.
Iran is a strategic rival for regional hegemony in the resource rich middle-east and has stood strong for Islamic unity. They also courageously and most justifiably call for an end to the Palestinian occupation – the ruthless suppression of an enslaved people, largely funded by America. There is no greater injustice than that being perpetrated against the Palestinian people. World condemnation, through the United Nations is consistently blocked by U.S. actions on the Security Council. As a result, the Non Aligned Nations Movement (NAM) is growing as an alternative to the UN. Its recent success is not generally reported in Western media, but 120 nations came together in Tehran the week before the New Horizon Film Festival – in unity and in opposition to the evils of the Israeli occupation of Palestine. The Secretary General of the United Nations even attended, as well as observers from Russia and China. The Palestinian occupation and Israeli aggressions (including “false flag” operations against other nations) are at the root of the discontents for Zionism.
As President Ahmadinejad gave me copy of Khayyam’s works, I gave him copy of my western motion picture, “Jericho“, and my political book, “Our Vision for America“. When I asked him what messages I might convey to the American people, he indicated “truths” and “Iran’s desire for peace”. Through lies and evil acts, Globalists and Zionists falsely portray Iran, as they seek conflict between nations. I later told him that our State Department should be meeting with Iran’s leaders and not depending on the initiatives of private citizens, like me. However, I hope that he and the Iranian people take hope in the prospect that many patriotic Americans are awakening to the evils that have consumed us, even while our politicians continue to betray the otherwise good spirit and traditions of the American people. Growing numbers seek answers that might save America and truly promote world peace.
Americans do not want war, and are beginning to realize that our politicians, of both major parties, initiate these actions against the wishes of the American people – and in accord with the intrigues of international bankers and their Zionist agents. It is time we stopped them by creating alternatives in politics, and in media. Iran sees the need and is taking appropriate initiatives, and so should America.
I went to Iran to promote the prospects for producing “False Flag“, a critically important motion picture. I returned to America more committed than ever to produce this political thriller and, through commercial entertainment, help awaken a sleeping America. Vital truths must be revealed so that new evils are not perpetrated against the people of America and Iran, with destructive effects resonating throughout the world. I also return committed to building a viable third party, which will represent traditional working class Americans, rather than perpetuating a corrupt two party system, which serves special global interests. God willing, my answer to the courageous efforts of President Ahmadinejad is “I also hope to meet you in a better future”.
Merlin Miller is a West Point graduate, US Army veteran, engineer, writer, filmmaker (www.Americana-Pictures.com) and 2012 Presidential candidate (www.MerlinMiller2012.com)
We are all free to believe what we want. This article gives us the opportunity to read both sides in order to conclude what seems to be most logical and backed up by actualities, rather than rhetoric.
Read the source article here.
The GOLDEN RULE 
Exactly where does the expressed intention to wipe Israel ‘off the face of the earth’ fit in to all of this?
Fair question, as that is used as a verbal “weapon” against Iran. But it has been shown to be a mistranslation or misconstrued. Please bear with me and I will follow that up and provide the “other side of that story” too.
Ok Oyia. I found what I was looking for and, hopefully, what will answer your question.
Here are extracts from the Global Research article clarifying the story.
-” Israel: “Wiped off The Map”. The Rumor of the Century, Fabricated by the US Media to Justify An All out War on Iran” By Arash Norouzi, Global Research, September 26, 2010
“The Mossadegh Project
Across the world, a dangerous rumor has spread that could have catastrophic implications. According to legend, Iran’s President has threatened to destroy Israel, or, to quote the misquote, “Israel must be wiped off the map”. Contrary to popular belief, this statement was never made, as the following article will prove.”
“So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want “wiped from the map”? The answer is: nothing. That’s because the word “map” was never used. The Persian word for map, “nagsheh“, is not contained anywhere in his original farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase “wipe out” ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran’s President threatened to “wipe Israel off the map”, despite never having uttered the words “map”, “wipe out” or even “Israel”.”
“In his speech, Ahmadinejad declares that Zionism is the West’s apparatus of political oppression against Muslims. He says the “Zionist regime” was imposed on the Islamic world as a strategic bridgehead to ensure domination of the region and its assets. Palestine, he insists, is the frontline of the Islamic world’s struggle with American hegemony, and its fate will have repercussions for the entire Middle East.”
Here is a link to the full post.
I would appreciate your thoughts after reading this. Regards, Ken.
(Thanks to TIP (http://tipggita32.wordpress.com ) who posted this previously and I found by a ‘search’ on their blog)
The relevant posts showing the re-blog section of my site show beyond any doubt the Islamic agenda and this is outlined succinctly in the video on this link: http://dancingczars.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/a-historical-account-of-muslim-terrorism-from-the-beginning-of-time/ I cannot trust any thing these people say.
I do believe Iran is lying about their nuclear program, that they will; develop nuclear weapons and use them indiscriminately (or threaten to) against Israel and the west on the least provocation. Using standard norms their interpretations of even their own religion are not rational – followers do not pretend to be rational in view of their absurd expectations on a violent death.
It is enough for me that Iran’s President, amongst many others, is presiding over a culture that routinely permits what is shown on the second video on this link: http://rashmanly.com/2012/09/26/two-women-tell-the-truth-about-islam/ . (That is what is heading our way in the west if we are not vigilant!)
The atrocities practiced in the name of Islam are without parallel. Are these the people for us to entrust with the continued existence of the planet?
I don’t think so..
Well Oyia, I have to acknowledge your challenge which has all guns blazing.
I intend returning with commentary on your linked videos but initially would like to say a couple of things as a matter of principle.
“I cannot trust any thing these people say.” This implies your belief that everything they say is wrong in context and/or morals.
In fact, some Muslims are saying good things at least some of the time. Some Muslims are saying good things most or even all the time. Most Muslims practice and believe in peace most of the time. [amended 30/9]
Some militant Muslims are saying and doing bad things most of the time but they do not represent the majority. Those, who are a minority, do not represent the majority and do not represent Iran’s government or population majority. There are no serious indications of Iran being involved in a war against either America or non-Muslims, regardless of such inferred interpretations of the Quoran, or rhetoric from the West.
“I do believe Iran is lying about their nuclear program,...” The beliefs that you and I hold are not based on knowledge. Only on information provided by other people. The differing information is being provided on the one hand by persons justifying their aggression against the Muslims, on the other hand by persons who have moral values and no vested interests. I follow the latter.
” Iran’s President, amongst many others, is presiding over a culture that routinely permits ……” Here we do have an issue of genuine concern. There are traditional Muslim behaviours which we find abhorrent, for good reason. We are correct in opposing them but we have no right to physically force our more humane standards on other cultures. We have a much better chance of influencing them if we are friends rather than enemies. BTW, he is presiding only over the Iranian population. [amended 30/9 ]
Also, do not overlook the atrocities that are committed by the American soldiers in degrading tortures and worse. Also the US government condoning much of what goes on and being themselves involved in unjust imprisonment and torture.
So, “The atrocities practiced in the name of Islam are without parallel“. claim is not so clearcut. The Western culture teaches us that which we should know and do better. The people practicing those Muslim practices we rightfully see as primitive, unjust, cruel, sexist and demeaning are unfortunately following a tradition, which hopefully we can help change. The religious inquisitions, indigenous genocides, organised child molestation are other instances of Western atrocities.
Some Christians (so-called) are committing atrocities and have been for centuries, but not all Christians or Christian countries are militant in action or intent. The Zionists, based in Israel, are warmongers and so are the US and associated countries. Right and wrong are judged differently from different points of view rather than from moral standpoints.
“Are these the people for us to entrust with the continued existence of the planet?” This isn’t really the point. No matter what we read or are being told, I cannot see any chance of the world being controlled by Muslim governments or traditions. This scenario is not likely the result of anything Iran could or does do. Remember, we are talking about Iran here, whether there is any justification for a first strike attack against them.
The only Muslim actions of destructive intent are isolated terrorist attacks, most of which are incited by the West anyway, especially those which involve regime changes.
I believe that we have much more to fear from our Western governments’ desire to control and depopulate the world, than from any Muslim country or movement.
So, bottom line is that we think and/or believe differently. I see why you think what you do, but believe that your belief basis is not sufficiently substantial for you to be very confident. (Here is where I need to look into your linked videos and assess the relevance and provenance).
It may suffice that we have documented and published our arguments. Whoever of the world receive the benefit of our “wisdoms” can judge and be influenced themselves.
Neither of us are likely to be able to change much, either our thinking or the rest of the world. Your comments greatly appreciated.
Reblogged this on OyiaBrown and commented:
Re-blogged with extreme scepticism!
Sorry, ‘these people’ was meant to refer to the illegitimate Islamic leaders.
Iran would hardly admit it if they were developing a nuclear program.
But, of course, beliefs are not the same as knowledge. In the absence of the latter however the former has to serve us; once beliefs become knowledge it may be too late. The suicide bomber takes the ultimate step based on his beliefs – not on on his knowledge. It is reasonable to expect devote Muslims to follow the teachings contained in his scriptures as they are all so vociferous in proclaiming.
Unless action is taken I think we will discover too late that the prize of WMD was irresistible to Iran who has a history in sponsoring mischief and terrorism in the region and elsewhere.
Sharia law itself involves a war against America and all Non Muslims. The ‘inferred’ interpretations of the Koran is inherent in the general despicable behaviour with which we are all so familiar.
There would be no aggression against Muslims to justify if Islam was a peaceful benign religion which does not threaten our way of life, if not our very existence. It is the aggression of Muslims which I and most people are concerned about. If you are likely to feel the majority are ‘liberal’ then perhaps you should consider this link: http://oyiabrown.com/2012/09/12/a-germans-view-on-islam-worth-reading/ Though a Muslim is a Muslim, the liberals are the only hope we have and they appear to have little, serious contribution to make. Therefore they are culpable.
Whether a matter of just ‘genuine concern’ or crimes against humanity is a matter for debate, but ‘being friends rather than enemies’ with Infidels is not an option for the radical Muslim any more than it would have been for Jews and Hitler – appeasement is no solution (I am not Jewish, by the way.)
We have every right to force our more humane standards on all cultures living in our midst. What action should be taken against violations of human rights, occurring behind closed doors in other countries is a matter for the conscience of the individual. Perhaps we should just walk past on the other side of the street.
The atrocities that are committed by a few rogue American soldiers in degrading tortures and worse, of the non-systemic variety, whether condoned or not, have not occurred over a period of 1300 years!
No other faith but Islam is inherently violent and expansionist. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and has as its intention nothing beyond living at peace from its warmongering Islamic neighbours within secure borders. All wars since its foundation have been of a defensive or pre-emptive nature. Their numerous overtures for peace have been scorned even when they have agreed to 99% of what was sought from them.
The point at which the world is ruled by Sharia Law is nigh unless great vigilance is exercised, and already it may be too late – that is the Islamic agenda. With WMD in their unstable hands the continued existence of the planet is very much the point, unless you have plans to live elsewhere.
There are no plans from our Western governments to control and depopulate the world.
I am very confidant of the accuracy of these views.
Thank you for your time.
http://juwannadoright.wordpress.com/2012/09/30/why-radical-islam-wants-an-obama-victory/
An excellent debate. Given our personal beliefs in interpreting our data confidently, only an unbiassed reader would be in a position to judge correct or not, most likely to be correct, or correct in some things but not others.
We probably are not able to advance the debate much further without wasting our energies, but I would make a couple of comments in reference to your reply.
“But, of course, beliefs are not the same as knowledge. In the absence of the latter however the former has to serve us; once beliefs become knowledge it may be too late. The suicide bomber takes the ultimate step based on his beliefs – not on on his knowledge. It is reasonable to expect devote Muslims to follow the teachings contained in his scriptures as they are all so vociferous in proclaiming.”
This is a very good comment. but when you say “as they all” we have returned to a generalization without substance.
“There would be no aggression against Muslims to justify if Islam was a peaceful benign religion which does not threaten our way of life, if not our very existence.”
I totally disagree with the perceived threat to “our way of life” or “existence“. If the West removed its interference from the Middle East and its support of Israel, (both unimaginable actions, of course), the West could then legitimately judge Islamic extremism on a level playing field.
Presumably, you blame Islamic militancy for the 9/11 Trade Centre etc attacks. In what I could provocatively term the real world, this belief is without justification.
“There are no plans from our Western governments to control and depopulate the world.”
I cannot agree with this claim, depending on our (edited) definitions of governments. The powers that we need to worry about are not the governments but the people behind the governments. An example: http://www.theglobalistreport.com/is-world-government-coming/
Much information, even on this blog and linked posts, is available by doing a category search under ‘New World Order”.
Even though I have become specifically critical of your claims, I very much appreciate your comments. I think I have said before that constructive criticism is necessary to prevent one’s beliefs becoming too ingrown. (or words to that effect).
You have certainly enhanced the value of this post, my sincere thanks Oyia!.
To add a little more, I refer to your link about the ‘what the German’s say’, which includes:
“We are told again and again by ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace.
Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave.
It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.”
This viewpoint pretty much supports what I am saying. It is only the fanatics who are the troublemakers, and the Islamic countries are not controlled by these fanatics. Iran’s leader is not a fanatic. As you say elsewhere, much of the Islamic violence is directed between Islamic sects. Other violence is directed against the US and other Western countries because of their violation of Islamic peoples and countries.
To say that “the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history” is not correct. They just cause so much trouble, but still a small amount compared to the Westerners, that the press who are supporting the Western violations provide excessive and biassed publicity to the general population. Ref: “The Innocence of U.S. Foreign Policy“.
“The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the ‘silent majority,’ is cowed and extraneous.”
The “cowed and extraneous” is a weird description to apply to the ‘silent majority’ who are in fact peace-loving. Why are we not mentioning the many group and sect leaders who are not silent but are publicly advocating peace and abhorring violence?
The full picture must be considered, not just one part.
Wait, there’s more!
We are discussing probably what is potentially the world’s greatest human disaster so it is fitting that we do it seriously. Or as seriously as our individual little selves are capable. Not that it matters, in the big picture, one iota what you or I say. Unless we believe in the theory that the flapping of a butterfly wing can create a tornado on the other side of the world, this is purely academic.
It is however, important to you and I, that we do what we can publicly, and can say that we have done our best with our versions of dealing with issues of “truth” and “justice”.
Two things – Your belief in the relative innocence of Israel “Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and has as its intention nothing beyond living at peace from its warmongering Islamic neighbours within secure borders” is so diametrically opposed to mine that I guess we will have to accept our differences.
Regarding Islamic power in Africa – you have given me the incentive to research this issue because it has not previously attracted my attention. In response I refer you to my just published post “Washington is Conquering Africa using France, Human Rights, Terrorism, and the National Endowment for Democracy“.
Here again we disagree strongly but it gives me an opportunity to add something of importance to this blog. (You will note that Israel gets a mention).
My very best regards, Oyia, I hope we are still friends.
Good web site you have here.. It’s hard to find high quality writing like yours nowadays. I honestly appreciate individuals like you! Take care!!
Thanks Alberto. Please comment on any subjects of interest to you.
An excellent debate. Given our personal beliefs in interpreting our data confidently, only an unbiassed reader would be in a position to judge correct or not, most likely to be correct, or correct in some things but not others.
We probably are not able to advance the debate much further without wasting our energies, but I would make a couple of comments in reference to your reply.
“But, of course, beliefs are not the same as knowledge. In the absence of the latter however the former has to serve us; once beliefs become knowledge it may be too late. The suicide bomber takes the ultimate step based on his beliefs – not on his knowledge. It is reasonable to expect devote Muslims to follow the teachings contained in his scriptures as they are all so vociferous in proclaiming.”
This is a very good comment. but when you say “as they all” we have returned to a generalization without substance.
“There would be no aggression against Muslims to justify if Islam was a peaceful benign religion which does not threaten our way of life, if not our very existence.”
I totally disagree with the perceived threat to “our way of life” or “existence“. If the West removed its interference from the Middle East and its support of Israel, (both unimaginable actions, of course), the West could then legitimately judge Islamic extremism on a level playing field.
Presumably, you blame Islamic militancy for the 9/11 Trade Centre etc attacks. In what I could provocatively term the real world, this belief is without justification.
“There are no plans from our Western governments to control and depopulate the world.”
I cannot agree with this claim, depending on our (edited) definitions of governments. The powers that we need to worry about are not the governments but the people behind the governments. An example: http://www.theglobalistreport.com/is-world-government-coming/
Much information, even on this blog and linked posts, is available by doing a category search under ‘New World Order”.
Even though I have become specifically critical of your claims, I very much appreciate your comments. I think I have said before that constructive criticism is necessary to prevent one’s beliefs becoming too ingrown. (or words to that effect).
You have certainly enhanced the value of this post, my sincere thanks Oyia!.
I WILL USE CAPITALS TO DIFFERENTIATE MY TEXT FROM YOURS.
SORRY ABOUT THE DELAY BUT HAVE BEEN AWAY.
This is a very good comment. but when you say “as they all” we have returned to a generalization without substance.
ALL DEVOUT MUSLIMS ARE VOCIFEROUS IN PROCLAIMING THE TEACHINGS CONTAINED IN THEIR SCRIPTURES.
I totally disagree with the perceived threat to “our way of life” or “existence“.
IF HAVING ISLAM (INEVITABLY COUPLED WITH SHARIA LAW) FORCED DOWN THE THROATS OF ALL UNBELIEVERS IS NOT A THREAT TO OUR WAY OF LIFE AND VERY EXISTENCE, THEN I DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS!
OF COURSE TO HAVE ANY DOCTRINE FORCED UPON ONE BY FORCE IS INTOLERABLE AND UNACCEPTABLE.
If the West removed its interference from the Middle East
THE MODERN INVOLVEMENT OF THE WEST IN THE AFFAIRS OF THE MIDDLE EAST IS LARGELY IN THE DEFENCE OF THE OPPRESSED MUSLIMS WHO HAVE FACED THE ROUTINE SLAUGHTER MEETED OUT TO OPPONENTS OF DICTATORS AND/OR EXTREMISTS.
THIS IS NOW HAPPENING IN SYRIA AND WILL LIKELY HAPPEN EVENTUALLY IN IRAN.
and its support of Israel
ISRAEL, AS THE ONLY DEMOCRACY IN THE REGION, UNDER CONSTANT ROCKET ATTACK FROM GAZA AND SURROUNDED BY HOSTILE ARAB STATES WHO WOULD LIKE NOTHING BETTER THAN A FURTHER WAR OF ATTRITION, DESERVES TO BE SUPPORTED.
ANYAGGRESSION SHOWN BY ISRAEL IS IN IN THE WAY OF SELF DEFENCE OR PRE-EMPTION.
the West could then legitimately judge Islamic extremism on a level playing field.
WE SHOULD JUDGE ALL EXTREMISM FOR WHAT IT IS: EXTREME! WE ARE ALL WILLING TO CO-EXIST WITH BENIGN, PEACEFUL RELIGIONS. ISLAM IS INHERENTLY RADICAL, OPPRESSIVE AND UNACCEPTABLE TO NON-BELIEVERS, DUE TO THE EXTREME TEACHINGS ENSHRINED IN ITS VERY SCRIPTURES.
THESE WERE UNACCEPTABLE FOR CONSUMPTION BY THE PEASANTS EVEN IN THE SEVENTH CENTURY – LET ALONE TODAY. THEY ARE INHERENTLY UNACCEPTABLE; WITH OR WITHOUT A ‘LEVEL PLAYING FIELD’.
CAN YOU REALLY IMAGINE A GOD CAPABLE OF CREATING THE UNIVERSE (IT IS CLAIMED), BEING SO SMALL MINDED AS TO SUBSCRE TO THE DETAILED, UNGODLY AND BARBARIC TEACHINGS IN THE ISLAMIC SCRIPTURES? TAKE THE TREATMENT OF WOMEN AND GIRLS AS AN EXAMPLE. MEN AND WOMEN ARE BORN EQUALLY WORTHY.
Presumably, you blame Islamic militancy for the 9/11 Trade Centre etc attacks. In what I could provocatively term the real world, this belief is without justification.
OF COURSE I DO.
I cannot agree with this claim, depending on our (edited) definitions of governments. The powers that we need to worry about are not the governments but the people behind the governments.
THOUGH A GREAT ADMIRER OF THE ELOQUENCE OF NIGEL FARAGE AND A LOT OF THE AIMS OF UKIP I CANNOT SEE A NEW WORLD ORDER EMERGING – U.N. OR OTHERWISE. YOU COULD ARGUE THAT THE TREND IS IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION: SCOTLAND FROM THE UK; THE UK FROM EUROPE AND PERHAPS OTHERS TO FOLLOW WHEN THE EURO COLLAPSES.
Ken McMurtrie says:
October 10, 2012 at 17:05
To add a little more, I refer to your link about the ‘what the German’s say’, which includes:
“We are told again and again by ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace.
Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave.
It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers
.”
This viewpoint pretty much supports what I am saying. It is only the fanatics who are the troublemakers, and the Islamic countries are not controlled by these fanatics. Iran’s leader is not a fanatic. As you say elsewhere, much of the Islamic violence is directed between Islamic sects. Other violence is directed against the US and other Western countries because of their violation of Islamic peoples and countries.
To say that “the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history” is not correct. They just cause so much trouble, but still a small amount compared to the Westerners, that the press who are supporting the Western violations provide excessive and biassed publicity to the general population. Ref: “The Innocence of U.S. Foreign Policy“.
“The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the ‘silent majority,’ is cowed and extraneous.”
The “cowed and extraneous” is a weird description to apply to the ‘silent majority’ who are in fact peace-loving. Why are we not mentioning the many group and sect leaders who are not silent but are publicly advocating peace and abhorring violence?
The full picture must be considered, not just one part.
This viewpoint pretty much supports what I am saying. It is only the fanatics who are the troublemakers, and the Islamic countries are not controlled by these fanatics.
BUT YOU HAVE STOPPED SHORT AND OMITTED THE WHOLE POINT OF THE ARTICLE UNDERLINED BELOW: THE LIBERAL MUSLIMS, WITH WHOM WE HAVE NO PROBLEM, AS THEY ARE BOTH PEACEFUL AND BENIGN, WILL BE ‘TRODDEN UNDERFOOT’’; SWAMPED BY THE RADICALS AND EXTREMISTS. THEY WILL HAVE NO SAY.
BECAUSE THEY HAVE TAKEN NO FIRM STAND THEY ARE ALSO CULPABLE. IT IS INSUFFICIENT TO STAND BACK AND SILENTLY WATCH.
The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the ‘silent majority,’ is cowed and extraneous. Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant.
China‘s huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.
The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.
And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were ‘peace loving’?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.
Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.
Iran’s leader is not a fanatic.
SPONSORING TERRORISM THROUGHOUT THE REGION AND SEEKING W.M.D. IS CLEARLY FANATICAL BEHAVIOUR. HIS FIRST TARGET WILL BE ISRAEL. WITH THEIR UNLIKELY BELIEFS IN A PARADISE FOR MARTYRS MUSLIMS HAVE LITTLE TO LOSE.
Other violence is directed against the US and other Western countries because of their violation of Islamic peoples and countries.
THE VIOLENCE OF WHICH YOU SPEAK IS TO DO WITH ISLAM’S ULTIMATE AIM OF WORLD RELIGIOUS DOMINATION. OF COURSE THEIR FIRST TARGETS (APART FROM ISRAEL) WILL BE THOSE COUNTRIES WHO HAVE STOOD UP AGAINST THEIR OWN VIOLATION OF ISLAMIC PEOPLES AND COUNTRIES. VIOLENCE IS THE VERY NATURE OF THE BEAST; THEY ARE INDOCTRINATED BY THEIR OWN SCRIPTURES.
To say that “the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history” is not correct. They just cause so much trouble, but still a small amount compared to the Westerners, that the press who are supporting the Western violations provide excessive and biassed publicity to the general population.
THE VOICE THE REST OF THE WORLD KNOWS IS THAT OF THE FANATICS WHO ARE ‘PULLING ALL THE SHOTS’ – AND THEY ARE BEING ALLOWED TO. THEY ARE THE ROTTEN APPLES IN THE BARREL THEREFORE EFFECTIVELY THEY RULE NOW AND CERTAINLY WILL WHEN CRUNCH TIME ARRIVES.
but still a small amount compared to the Westerners, that the press who are supporting the Western violations provide excessive and biassed publicity to the general population.
“THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE WEST IN THE MIDDLE EAST IS LARGELY IN THE DEFENCE OF THE OPPRESSED MUSLIMS WHO HAVE FACED THE ROUTINE SLAUGHTER MEETED OUT TO THE OPPONENTS OF DICTATORS AND/OR EXTREMISTS. THIS IS NOW HAPPENING IN SYRIA AND WILL LIKELY HAPPEN EVENTUALLY IN IRAN.”
OF COURSE THE WEST IS BIASED – IT IS IN THE FIRING LINE!
Why are we not mentioning the many group and sect leaders who are not silent but are publicly advocating peace and abhorring violence?
IF SUCH TAKES PLACE IT IS OUT OF THE EARSHOT OF MOST OF US.
HOWEVER THEY WOULD BE HERETICAL IF THEY DID AS THEY WOULD BE FLYING IN THE FACE OF THEIR OWN SCRIPTURES WHICH PRESCRIBES CRUELTY AND VIOLENCE. ADVOCATION ALONE IS INADEQUATE; THEY WOULD NEED TO DISSOCIATE THEMSELVES AND BREAK AWAY IF THEY WANTED TO BE ACCEPTABLE.
IF CHRISTIANITY (WRONGLY IN MY OPINION) CAN SPLIT INTO NUMEROUS ‘DENOMINATIONS’ OVER MATTERS SO TRIVIAL AS THE POINT AT WHICH BABTISM SHOULD TAKE PLACE – THEN MODERATE MUSLIMS CANNOT ALLOW THEMSELVES TO CONTINUE TO SHARE THE SAME PLATFORM WITH BUTCHERS, CHILD RAPISTS AND MURDERERS.
Ken McMurtrie says:
October 12, 2012 at 00:28
Wait, there’s more!
We are discussing probably what is potentially the world’s greatest human disaster so it is fitting that we do it seriously. Or as seriously as our individual little selves are capable. Not that it matters, in the big picture, one iota what you or I say. Unless we believe in the theory that the flapping of a butterfly wing can create a tornado on the other side of the world, this is purely academic.
It is however, important to you and I, that we do what we can publicly, and can say that we have done our best with our versions of dealing with issues of “truth” and “justice”.
Two things – Your belief in the relative innocence of Israel “Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and has as its intention nothing beyond living at peace from its warmongering Islamic neighbours within secure borders” is so diametrically opposed to mine that I guess we will have to accept our differences.
Regarding Islamic power in Africa – you have given me the incentive to research this issue because it has not previously attracted my attention. In response I refer you to my just published post “Washington is Conquering Africa using France, Human Rights, Terrorism, and the National Endowment for Democracy“.
Here again we disagree strongly but it gives me an opportunity to add something of importance to this blog. (You will note that Israel gets a mention).
My very best regards, Oyia, I hope we are still friends.
Unless we believe in the theory that the flapping of a butterfly wing can create a tornado on the other side of the world, this is purely academic.
THE ONLY THEORY IN WHICH I BELIEVE IS HOW THE EVENTS TAKING PLACE ARE PERCEIVED. WE CAN ONLY REPORT WHAT WE SEE IN THE WAY THAT WE SEE IT AND ADVOCATE ACTION TO DIVERT WHAT CLEARLY APPEARS TO BE THE INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCES OF THE DIRECTION IN WHICH WE ARE TRAVELLING.
TO MANY IN THE WEST ISLAM (BOTH THE MODERATE AND EXTREME VERSIONS) IS SEEN AS A MEANS OF ACHIEVING GRATIFICATION FOR MEN AT THE EXPENSE IF WOMEN; THIS CANNOT BE RIGHT.
Here again we disagree strongly but it gives me an opportunity to add something of importance to this blog.
I THINK THE MENTION OF AFRICA CAME FROM THE ARTICLE ABOUT PERCEPTION OF ISLAM IN GERMANY. HOWEVER, ONE OF THE MOST GROTESQUE AND HARD LINE VERSIONS OF ISLAM IS CERTAINLY PRACTISED IN PARTS OF THAT CONTINENT.
THANKS.
Hi Oyia, a formidable debater, as I admitted earlier.
I think we have pretty much had our say.
We have researched information which has proven to be either conflicting or not, from which we have chosen to interpret and believe what we feel is either true or likely, and concluded opposing views.
Only an arbitrator could resolve our differences, whose to say what interpretations they would apply?
Without wishing to prolong the debate, that would be seemingly futile, I will attempt make my final contribution.
This extract from “A SECOND ‘AGE OF EXTREMES’? – FROM POLITICAL EXTREMES TO CULTURAL EXTREMES”, by Allan ‘Acker’ Jones. (Link here.)
“The jihadi philosophy/ideology is — no less than Nazism — “based on conquest and the subjugation of other people.” The late Father Richard John Neuhaus aptly defined jihadism as a religiously inspired ideology built on the teaching “that it is the moral obligation of all Muslims to employ whatever means necessary in order to compel the world’s submission to Islam.”
If that is supposed to define Islamic extremism then by the simple expediency of crossing out some descriptors and replacing them appropriately it also defines Christian fundamentalism and Zionism. It also defines the kind of extremist ideology inherent in the notion of American and Western Exceptionalism for is not Zionism based on the conquest and subjugation of the Palestinian people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip or the Arab peoples of the Golan Heights? And is not this quest supported by Christian fundamentalists and Christian Zionists who are among the same people as those that are inspired by the notion of American and Western Exceptionalism? And do not these people see their cause as ridding the world of Islam so that the world of Islam reflects more the ideals and interests of the West?
A change to peace can only come about when all sides recognise the stupidity of feeding off each others hatreds and understanding that tolerance and respect is the only way forward. There will be no future for a world in which a never ending cycle of hypocrisy, arrogance and violence toward each other prevails as an ideology.”
Many thanks for your contribution.
Whilst the latter paragraphs are loudly applauded, I am at a loss to understand some of the references in the earlier paragraphs.
Wilkipedia states with regard to Christian Fundamentalism:
“Since 1930, Fundamentalism has not been an organized movement, and has not had a national body or official statement of beliefs. However, fundamentalists have been criticized for presenting God “more as a God of judgement and punishment than as a God of love and mercy.”
In truth, and emanating from a Christian culture and background, I have hardly ever heard of this group and would suggest it plays no significant (if any) role nowadays (if it ever did) in Christian affairs. However, I am sure it never advocated the routine and wholesale slaughter of ‘non-believers’.
Wilkipedia states with regard to Zionism:
“Zionism emerged in the late 19th century in central and eastern Europe as a national revival movement and soon after this most leaders of the movement associated this with the colonization of Palestine. According to Zionist thinking Palestine was occupied by strangers. [2] Since the establishment of the State of Israel, the Zionist movement continues primarily to advocate on behalf of the Jewish state and address threats to its continued existence and security.”
It would seem the last sentence is laudable totally apt and I fully support that (though I have never used the term ‘Zionism’).
I feel that the Palestinian claims are illegitimate and unfounded. They are used by anti-Semites simply as a Cause Célèbre in an attempt to commit genocide against the only democratic nation in the region who, not only have no territorial aspirations themselves, but have conceded to their enemies large tracts of land in the interests of peace (which have always been rejected).
It might show some consistency if the furore targetted at Israel also had Jordan in its sights. As the claims involve the re-writing of history they should be considered as completely disingenuous.
Thanks.
A quick and simple answer to this is that “the truth is there to see, from the actions of the two protagonists.
Who is actually doing what to whom? Does the violence/punishment fit the crime?
Israel was allocated by international “law”, a status and territory.
Forget previous history.
Israel has subsequently, forcibly, without international authority, (other than a significant lack of concern showed), invaded and marauded another people’s territory. If you consider the past to be relevant and provides some sort of justification, Australia should be returned to the Native Aboriginals and the US to the Native Indians etc etc etc!
Let’s be realistic!
We both start at the same point then; my historic references were in answer to yours.
This scenario involves one uncompromising, antagonist, backed by many undemocratic dictatorships, (whose battle cry is: ‘from the river to the sea’), attacking one democratic nation, who is repeatedly willing to negotiate and make concessions.
Israel’s sole concern is to live peaceably within secure borders and is anxious to avoid the proclaimed total genocide of its citizens – sound and worthy objectives by any standard. To achieve that is must retaliate against all hostility.
The carefully targeted, defensive response to this unmerited and unprovoked aggression far more than ‘fits the crimes’ continuously being committed – ‘crime’ being your euphemism for holocaust/genocide.
Don’t place too much emphasis on the statistical, casualty count which is partially fabricated using Pallywood theatre, partly ‘friendly fire’ and mainly caused by choosing enclaves of civilian population (human shields) to hide amongst, when launching the repeated, indiscriminate rocket attacks which went unanswered for many, many months.
Consider how much land remains from the original package.
How much more should be conceded for Israel still to remain viable?
Where are the concessions offered in return?
When will the offers repeatedly made for peace be taken seriously by the Palestinians?
This, unfortunately, is the realism of the situation.
Hi Oyia,
I cannot fathom what is going on here with your processes of perception and understanding. Obviously realism is in the mind of the beholder, and doesn’t necessarily represent REALITY as it exists in the real world.
Logically this can be true for one of us, but not for both, as we have diametrically opposing views based on the same factual information. Perhaps not exactly that, as what you believe as factual and what I believe as factual are also in opposition.
Nevertheless, we have explained our own views and beliefs in detail.
Readers can sort this out to their own conclusions if they so desire.
Your contribution to this post is greatly appreciated and has made it a significant part of my blog.
Thank you for that, I cannot really see what else I can say.
Maybe just to say that you tend to rely on propaganda, rather than what is actually occurring. e.g. The Israelis do not make genuine peace proposals, they are a sham. The Palestinians do not make war but genuinely retaliate against the Israeli aggression. That is the reality!
Best Regards, Ken.
Hi Ken,
Again, sorry about the delay.
I wonder whether the following three short videos will clarify your understanding of my processes of perception and understanding – I hope so.
They are the historical facts of the situation – not propaganda.
Don’t lose sight of the slogan, ‘From the river to the sea’, which continures until this day:
Also:
http://www.wall-of-truth.org/
Kind Regards, Oyia.
Great to hear from you Oyia!
Will have a look at your video links with interest, and no doubt have a comment.
Thanks, regards, Ken.