Iran, Geopolitics and the Bomb

Tahmed #105 and Kulharee,
I finally am in agreement with your views about the Arab/Muslim marching band when it comes to the defense of either Palestinian or Iranian interest. First of all, Iran was the victim of Iraqi aggression in the decade long Iran/Iraq war started by Sadman Houston. Only the Syrians and Libyans voiced support for Iran. Even Pakistan, led by the Saudi-worshipping Zia, managed to piss Iran off by having a pro-Iraqi stance - all in the name of Sunni ``brotherhood.`` The Palestinians, themselves victims of Arab double-speak, went all pom poms for the Iraqi dictator. If there is anything that irritates me more than the ban on clothing-optional beaches, it`s this annoying call for Muslim ``unity.``

kulharee #94 Very well put indeed!! You are absolutely right about these individuals who pine day and night on the plight of the palestinians while the arabs couldnt care less for them - how many of their palestinian brothers have even bothered to visit chowk, e.g.?? Not one!! That is the level of interest they have in Pakistan!! The big hero Saddam (whose overthrowing up the US seems to touch a raw nerve with these people) told Benazir Bhutto that Kashmir was not his problem when she went all the way to Baghdad to get his support. And yet, the entire view of the world of these people is based on their tears for the palestinians.

As for the palestinians - one of them told me last year that he was fed up of arafat and all the other arab leaders who simply pointed to israel as a way to keep the pressure away from themselves. And yet, these self-indulgent individuals, enjoying the comforts of the west about which they have nothing good to say, have nothing to think about beyond the ``injustice to palestinians`` they keep harping on.

Ref:#101 by rsridhar on January 24, 2006 6:06pm PT

re:#82 by bbabu

{Can`t u ignore this idiot. The pig is so obnoxious. Why should we even read his posts.}

Obviously, you can`t even follow your own advice. And then you wonder why people like you should not be kicked around and humiliated. You have an empty skull, and your brains are stuck between your legs. And you eat your gau mata`s dung. That must be where you lay all day and just come out at night to justify to yourself that you are a human, which you are not.

You are a creature hard for humans to understand.

Dear Masadi:

Today I saw on the BBC news that there is a World Socialist Forum being held somewhere in Latin America. Where is it being held?

This is in direct competition to the corporaists` gatherings World Economic Forum being held at Davos.

Respectfully submitted,

#100 by rashid_s
Dear Mr. Rashid
To begin with, title of this thread deals with Iran and the controversy surrounding its nuclear technology. Thus the comment regarding Palestine.

Iam not sure whether you can call Saud ibn Abdul Aziz Wahabi movement as a fight for self-determination against the British, if anything he and the Muslim Brotherhood (Akkwanulmuslimeen) were fighting Turkish-Ottoman (Muslim) forces. Saud was in collaboration with the Brits fighting against fellow muslims who helped him throw the Turks out of Hijaz. Saudi movement can only be described as a Religious movement, not as a freedom struggle for its local inhabitants who were later on either slaughtered, coerced or pushed out based on their religious affinity.

As for the Trans-Jordan empire, well the Sharifs of Medina were gifted Jordan by the Brits for their support against the Ottomans, there was no freedom struggle.

All India Muslim League can be best described as the only freedom struggle against a illegal, colonial British occupation. Herein lies the problem, were the Muslims justified in claiming a separate homeland? Was not India always the homeland for Muslims, hindus, sikhs? India of today is a fine representation of a multi-religious state, why then demand separation of a age old civilization? Had it not been for the Brits, Jinnah wud not have got Pakistan with such relative ease. One can also infer that Pakistan was gifted to the Muslims by the Brits for their support in WWII whereas Congress chose to wait for the Japs.

My apologies for making historical statements, purpose is to clarify the thought process and ideas expressed in our posts.

thanks

Arif

re:#82 by bbabu
Can`t u ignore this idiot. The pig is so obnoxious. Why should we even read his posts.
Sridhar

88 by rf786 on January 24, 2006 1:32am PT
Dear rf786
Since, and according to you, this is not the forum to discuss the issue you raised earlier at 81, I would only beg to differ with you on historic facts you posted here.
The countries you mentioned fought with “OCCUPIERS” for “self determination”, they are hardly appropriate examples. The British were the occupiers of Palestine not Palestine of Israel. Where as the reverse is true to day!
The Palestinians are fighting on at least FOUR fronts, the UN, British who slyly hand balled the hot potato to the UN, the USA who helped deliver the baby and Israel, not to mention its retinue of myriads of midwives in the clinic of yore.
Rashid

I meant ``confused`` not ``confuse``

#97, there is nothing ``outstanding`` in those two posts of yours, in fact they are pretty lame. You want to know if China will face a disaster in 20 to 30 years- what do you think I am, a fortune teller? That said, yes if it integrates itself into the global economic system at the speed that it is and does not undertake socialistic programs to reduce poverty, it will face disaster. The example of Russia as a capitalistic experiment is in front of you, you do not have to wait 20 to 30 years to see the results.

Next you state <<< What indian people need is not a ``free`` fish but the skill to catch a fish.>>> What you are recommending is the exact opposite of what you claim. MNCs do not and have not transferred technology and skills to the locals, while protectionism to help the infant industries grow does ``teach a person to fish``. So what side are you trying to defend. I think you are very confuse.

#92 masadi:


where are you man!!!!

please reply to #125 and #127 on ``Giant Desis`` board.

don`t disappoint me or you will just turn out to be yet another commie propagandists.

you bovine-phile.

HAHAHA, thats a pretty good insult for a Hindu actually!! Good for you Naqsh.

#94, Kulharee Bhai,
How are you, my good frend?
I agree with your opinion. I was merely requesting the venerable sage to control his ill-advised vocabulary. :)

Re: #93

Salim Chauhan Bhaijan, Salutations.

I think if you get past the insinuations, Tahmed32 Sahib is making a very valid point. All these so called lefty commie terrorists sympathizers, like Asadi Sahib and Naqshbandi Sahib, would never want to live any of the countries they see so victimized by the ``west``. In fact, they would prefer to live in the West, enjoy fruit of the Western way of life, it’s openness and its freedom of choice and expression. Their necks will be chopped in Iran and Pakistan if they said anything against their own barbaric brand of Islam that promotes violence against non-Muslims and minorities. In addition, they just want to be considered Arabo-Persian Central Asian and not Hindu converts to Islam. These guys are embarrassed of their heritage. Meanwhile, the Arabs and Iranians show their kind the middle finger. Have you heard of any Arab wannabe Pakistanis in the higher ranks of Al-Qaeda? These Pakis are only taken as water boys by Sami Laden and his high ranking officers.

#74, tahmed32 {``after 7 years on chowk, you are as stupid as the first day you came. and still living in the west (the sinister ``they`` above) , while pining for iran where they would kick your naqshbandi ass from tehran to zahedan if you ever chose to go an live there!! ``}

Mr. Tahmed32, Sir,
I was very disappointed to see this vulgarity emanating from your pristine being. Whether you agree with Mr. Naqshbandi or not is your own personal problem. When you use a public forum to denigrate a writer and hurl personal insults about his anatomy, you make a veritable derry erry out of yourself. Please behave or take some etiquette classes from yourself - perhaps standing in front of your own mirror. Remember what I said about you? ``Do as I say and not as I do`` fits you quite well.

#80 writes <<< Secondly, it were callous people like yourself (meaning tahmed) who used the ``10 year iran-iraq where millions were killed`` argument to generate mass hysteria against Saddam, labeling him sole responsible person for that terrible war where Iraq invaded Iran. And now that Saddam is no more, you are using the ``10 year iran-iraq war`` argument against Iran too! >>>

True, and the US wasn`t as ``innocent`` in that war either and the fact remains that regardless of the rhetoric coming out of Iran/Pakistan etc, the ONLY ones that have used the bomb, and used it on civilian cities while claiming otherwise at the time, totally unjustifiably have been the US elite. Not only that they have contemplated using it much more than the mullahs that tahmed refers to. Here is a quote from Michael Parenti:

``Truman threatened the Soviets with the atom bomb when they were slow in withdrawing their troops from Iran immediately after World War II. In 1950, he publicly warned that nuclear weapons were under consideration in the Korean War. In 1953 during the same war, Eisenhower made secret nuclear threats against China and North Korea. In 1954 Secretary of State Dulles actually offered tactical nuclear weapons to the French during their final losing battle in Vietnam, but Paris declined the offer. Johnson considered nuclear weapons in Vietnam in 1968. Nixon contemplated using Nuclear Bombs against North Vietnam on a number of occasions from 1969 to 1972. In 1973, he also thought of using them when it was feared that the Soviets might intervene in the Middle East. On two other occasions, anticipating aggression by Moscow against the Chinese during a border dispute and possible Soviet intervention in the 1971 India-Pakistan war, Nixon toyed with the nuclear option`` Not yet mentioned were the two occasions when President Kennedy contemplated using Nuclear Weapons: during the Berlin Crisis of 1961 and the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. (Michael Parenti 1989, The Sword & the Dollar: 174-175)

#87 by rashid_s on January 24, 2006 0:23am PT


Is the cliché—might is right the NEW WORLD ORDER to be accepted under duress???


For pakis, acceptance of reality has always been optional..and highly unusual..