Musings of a former chicken

.

.

.

Tak khori is bad, Fred!

Hazrate Fred, it is true that there are khalAfkArs(*) in charge of Iran, but those khalAfkArs in charge of the U.S and AIPAC that you support want to do tak khori. U.S/Israel sooner or later have to accept that tak khori is not acceptable by other khalAfkArs (Iran, Russia, ...):

Watch this short clip of the movie Marmolak:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0KkZe_SUPo&feature...

(*)khalAfkAr=criminal

Dear Fred

You say: "We just have different outlook on America, I see the glass as half full and am thirsty and think what she has done for others can be done for Iran." What about what the US government is doing right at this very minute in Iran's two immediate neighbors? Do you want that to be done to Iran too?

Amir

Being the chronicler of others’ bad behavior is an innate trait with some, trying to convince others of their point of view is another.

You say America is not the arbiter of democracy, I say fine with me. Does that wash away her achievements in Europe, Japan, the Baltic and other places?

You say America is not part of the sane world, again I say that too is fine with me. Does that wash away her history of progressively improving her treatment of her own citizens, where you as a foreign born per your own statement, naturalized American, have the same rights as any other?

Its contrast is the craziness of how Islamist Rapists treat their own citizens. Chopping off their limbs, raping them, tying them to trees and whipping them, or not recognizing children of next door neighbor, Afghanistan, born and raised to Iranian mothers and in Iran as Iranians and the rest of the insanity they call governance.

We just have different outlook on America, I see the glass as half full and am thirsty and think what she has done for others can be done for Iran. You on the other hand do not see it that way, believe me I have no desire to change your mind, but have a suggestion. Look into how Gandhi saw the British and advocated others to see it that way in their fight for independence, there is a lot to be learned.

Lastly, your “whining” about the legitimacy of leading question tells me you do not recognize the nature of such questions as having their own answers within and is only soliciting confirmation which I just gave you in the form of limited power of attorney.

Pardon my lack of sophistication

I am kinda at a loss reading all these intellectual posts. My simple mind looks at the situation like this: My six year old child is holding a little stone in his hand and is trying to scare away this monster 7 foot tall 350pound ruthless, child molester,  murderer who is telling him to drop his little stone, or else…. Now you tell me to stand outside and tell my 6 year old, go right ahead, don’t listen to this bastard, hang on to your little stone, it is yours, it is your right to have it. Don't listen to him, "hich gohi nemitooneh bokhoreh", "Zerr-e ziadi mizaneh".

Does that make sense to you?

The funny part is that you screamed and went out of your way to elect this murderer to be where he is.

How can you rationalize it?

Amir jan: Perhaps AIPAC

Amir jan: Perhaps AIPAC pays only for spreading propaganda and not responding to questions, specially if the questions do not serve the Zionist/neo cons interest. So, I wouldn't hold my breath to get any real responses from Fred. Many have tried and failed.

Mehrdad

Fred

Why does your "primary and overarching concentration" with the plight of the Iranian people seem to lend itself to a constant attempt to depict the U.S. government as some sort of "arbiter of democracy", the "sane world", etc? In this blog and your other recent blog about U.S. policy, you appear to portray the U.S. as blameless and lay the fault of a (possible future) attack on Iran at the feet of the Iranian regime while absolving the U.S. government, if it were to carry out such an attack. Does this advance the interests of the Iranian people? (Is that a leading question)?

And what is this whining about "leading questions" anyway? Leading questions too can be answered, you know. What format would it be more acceptable to pose questions to you? Please let me know. Regards.

Amir

Actually you did not ask any question on the subject of the blog, you just presented your spin on two sentences in it ending with some leading questions irrelevant to the subject of the blog.  

Since you’ve tried on number of occasions, let me make it easy for you. Make a list of what you want me to agree with, your questions being leading ones that is the logical assumption, that is all the wrongs the U.S. has done is doing and by all probability will be doing.

My primary and overarching concentration being with the plight of Iran and Iranians at the hands of the barbaric Islamist Rapists, I hereby give you the limited power of attorney to agree with whatever it is you want me to agree with on that list.

Signed and sealed.  

Fred, Isn't you that

Fred, Isn't you that actually ignoring the responses to your non-sense propaganda? Q has responded so elegantly and logically and a few have endorsed that view. Now who is ignoring the topics?

Timothy:

If we believe possessing WMD is wrong then it should apply to all and not only those who have singed a treaty which now they are being taken hostage by their good will. And if we don't believe that is wrong, then we ought to stop whining about others trying to acquire it.

Mehrdad

I suspect Fred is just one of those civillian contractors

I suspect Fred is just one of those civillian contractors hired by the intelligence agencies to do their bidding. Who else would spend their time churning out pro-US establishement talking points every single day.

Re: The subject of the blog and question for Fred

The first sentence of the blog reads: "With President Obama’s bolstering of U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan, America’s ever more hands on involvement alongside the Pakistani army against the Islamists in that country..."

It seems that "bolstering of U.S. troop strength" is a euphemism for "escalation of the war in Afghanistan". It makes U.S. military aggression seem somewhat more benign. The phrase "America’s ever more hands on involvement alongside the Pakistani army against the Islamists in that country" would perhaps be more honestly rendered as "U.S. pressure on the Zardari government and corrupt Pakistani military to subject certain regions of the country to intense artillery barrages and military operations and drive over a million civilians from their homes".

Question: Semantics aside, wouldn't the above-mentioned 2 recent policies by the Nobel Peace Prize winning US president (along with the ongoing occupation of Iraq by well over 100,000 US troops) indicate that the U.S. government is a warmonger of many magnitudes greater than the undeniably rotten Iranian regime? 

.

.

5 more & get a prize

For all  your creative ways of ignoring the subject of the blog and for all the personal attacks, counting ghaaltaagh as one, you are still short five others to make it a dozen to qualify for a khoroos ghandi prize.  Good luck.  

There he goes again

looks like he hasnt given up on his quest to impose airtight sanctions on the Iranian people.

As for others who say we should ignore what he says I disagree. We should be as resilient as Fred in trying to discredit his anti-Iran pro-neocon stance. 

Well said Q

You make too much sense. Don't waste your time on Fred's two-blogs per day propaganda. He's not going to hear any reasonable argument while he's busy repeating his usual rhetoric on cue as if it was his job or something...

Fred:

I wonder who's blessed Israel's nuclear bombs and made them legal? We know it's not NPT or IAEA or UN, so how is Israel nuclear capability "legal"? 

IRANdokht

lol @ illegal nuke program... like any of them were "legal"

fred you're a joke. like me. i wish your avatar were a better match for the comedy you provide readers here. 

Well said Q, their

Well said Q, their arrogance and warmongering attitude is beyond beliefs. And the more they open their mouth, the more they revile of their fascist nature.

Mehrdad

"Pro-Defense vs. Pro-War

"Pro-Defense vs. Pro-War "

A very interesting article that could easily apply to Iran too:

For me, the issue I have is that I do not see President Obama or myself as //www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/12/2/809908/-A-Simple-Question-for-Those-Who-Say-They-are-Anti-War

jigsawnovich

Islamism is a recognized despotic political dogma akin to Nazism, Fascism and has as much to do with any religion, Abrahamic or not, as the other such dogmas do.

As far as the Islamist Rapist Republic is concerned the tactic of hiding behind the religion of Islam is by now all but passé.  The harm they have inflicted on the religion of Islam is at such magnitude that the pious Muslims make up the bulk of their uncompromising opponents.

AIPAC sycophant (well said Q)

It appears that the AIPAC sycophant has all but come out of the closet with his latest 2 daily articles!
The fascist was pretending to be somewhat moderate for a while! Haven't we seen their playing nice turned to blatant fascism over and over again ..... by like minded people such as Zion, BijAn, MM, ...?

Let us be truly instrument of Peace!

This tit-for-tat gossip mongering is not conducive to "peace" or averting a disatrous war/sanctions against Iran.

Fred,  Can you evision a peaceful dialogue between AIPAC and NIAC here in the US???

dogmatic Islamists

Saudis are even stricter than Iran in terms of music and clothing.  This doesn't qualify as "dogmatic Islamist?"  I'm still trying to get a grasp on what Islamist truly means, so please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

.

.

“The crux of the issue

“The crux of the issue about Iran's nuclear program is, in my opinion, as follows: If Iran has the ability to make the bomb on a short notice, it becomes unattackable. That is not something that the US and Israel can tolerate. They want to be the hegemon of the Middle East.”

Who is that quote from? Juan Cole?

I don't think Russia or China will ever allow an Islamic Hegemon along their borders but that does not mean they won't use Iran as their meal ticket by pretending that they support the IRI's idiotic ambition but that is entirely another subject.

Just like the rest of the Israelis

Fred has trouble distinguishing "defense" from "offense". It's not your fault of course, for 60 years, now warmogners in US and Israel have been trying to define offense as defense.

It's the Imperialists God given right to attack anyone and anything they so desire, or so is the message being passed by their lapdogs.

Of course under such twisted dilusion a "unattackable" country is a "threat". I guess if your survival is based on starting wars, you will be in existensial danger if you can't start wars anymore. The horrors of that tragedy! Oh my g-d!

Why not attack them to make sure they never become unattackable! ?

Sounds absurd but that's what Fred is arguing.

the sane world

I seriously doubt the millions of ordinary Iraqis forced out of their country to live in poverty as a consequence of war would share your characterization of "the sane world".

Neither would the tens of thousands of victims of Abu Ghraib. Or the hundred thousand Iraqi mothers whose children died as a result of the sanctions imposed by "the sane world" during the 1990's.