Iranian leader ..Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator

[one...two...tree 2,762]

First of all, Gary, he spoke in Farsi, not Arabic - find an actual quote of him saying that in Farsi with a verbatim translation into English. He may be a little on the Hitler side of things, but it's best that we get the facts straight before we go to war on what we think he said.

....

So you think Al Jazeera is a western media dupe? Little Hitler has made no bones about his goal to destroy Israel. To think anything else is just fooling yourself.

So you're willing to engage with Iran militarily based on that premise? God help us.

[no name 1]

First of all, Gary, he spoke in Farsi, not Arabic - find an actual quote of him saying that in Farsi with a verbatim translation into English. He may be a little on the Hitler side of things, but it's best that we get the facts straight before we go to war on what we think he said.

....

So you think Al Jazeera is a western media dupe? Little Hitler has made no bones about his goal to destroy Israel. To think anything else is just fooling yourself.

Name calling & making blanket statements really does nothing for your argument Gary.

[GaryC 7]

First of all, Gary, he spoke in Farsi, not Arabic - find an actual quote of him saying that in Farsi with a verbatim translation into English. He may be a little on the Hitler side of things, but it's best that we get the facts straight before we go to war on what we think he said.

....

So you think Al Jazeera is a western media dupe? Little Hitler has made no bones about his goal to destroy Israel. To think anything else is just fooling yourself.

Name calling & making blanket statements really does nothing for your argument Gary.

Blanket statements? Where? I am only repeating what he said. And "Little Hitler" fits him. His goals and Hitlers goals are the very same.

First of all, Gary, he spoke in Farsi, not Arabic - find an actual quote of him saying that in Farsi with a verbatim translation into English. He may be a little on the Hitler side of things, but it's best that we get the facts straight before we go to war on what we think he said.

....

So you think Al Jazeera is a western media dupe? Little Hitler has made no bones about his goal to destroy Israel. To think anything else is just fooling yourself.

So you're willing to engage with Iran militarily based on that premise? God help us.

On the basis that he wants Israel destroyed? You bet!!!

[Jenn! 918]

On the basis that he wants Israel destroyed? You bet!!!

Just curious...would you feel that way about threats to destroy *any* country?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

And "Little Hitler" fits him. His goals and Hitlers goals are the very same.

I don't think he has ambitions of dominating his neighbors the way Hitler did. I agree that he's no model leader for a democracy but we need to tread on careful ground when we're talking about taking military action against a country that has done nothing to us, unless you subscribe to the PNAC's Manifesto. Can we please stop beating the war drums and look for diplomatic solutions? Please, in the name of my children and their children, please stop this nonsense.

Edited September 25, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Bush League War Drums Beating Louder on Iran

By Ray McGovern

Friday 24 August 2007

It is as though I'm back as an analyst at the CIA, trying to estimate the chances of an attack on Iran. The putative attacker, though, happens to be our own president.

It is precisely the kind of work we analysts used to do. And, while it is still a bit jarring to be turning our analytical tools on the US leadership, it is by no means entirely new. For, of necessity, we Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) have been doing that for almost six years now - ever since 9/11, when "everything changed."

Of necessity? Yes, because, with very few exceptions, American journalists put their jobs at grave risk if they expose things like fraudulent wars.

The craft of CIA analysis was designed to be an all-source operation, meaning that we analysts were responsible - and held accountable - for assimilating information from all sources and coming to judgments on what it all meant. We used data of various kinds, from the most sophisticated technical collection platforms, to spies, to - not least - open media.

Here I must reveal a trade secret and risk puncturing the mystique of intelligence analysis. Generally speaking, 80 percent of the information one needs to form judgments on key intelligence targets or issues is available in open media. It helps to have been trained - as my contemporaries and I had the good fortune to be trained - by past masters of the discipline of media analysis, which began in a structured way in targeting Japanese and German media in the 1940s. But, truth be told, anyone with a high school education can do it. It is not rocket science.

.....

Surgical Strikes First?

With the propaganda buildup we have seen so far on Iran, what seems most likely, at least initially, is an attack on Revolutionary Guard training facilities inside Iran. That can be done with cruise missiles. With some twenty targets already identified by anti-Iranian groups, there are enough assets already in place to do that job. But the "while-we're-at-it" neocon logic referred to above may well be applied after, or even in conjunction with, that kind of limited cruise missile attack.

Cheerleading in the Domesticated Media

Yes, it is happening again.

The lead editorial in yesterday's Washington Post regurgitates the allegations that Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps is "supplying the weapons that are killing a growing number of American soldiers in Iraq;" that it is "waging war against the United States and trying to kill as many American soldiers as possible." Designating Iran a "specially designated global terrorist" organization, says the Post, "seems to be the least the United States should be doing, giving the soaring number of Iranian-sponsored bomb attacks in Iraq."

It's as though ####### Cheney and friends are again writing the Post's editorials. And not only that: arch neocon James Woolsey told Lou Dobbs on August 14 that the US may have no choice but to bomb Iran in order to halt its nuclear weapons program. As Woolsey puts it, "I'm afraid within, well, at worst, a few months; at best, a few years; they could have the bomb."

Woolsey, self-described "anchor of the Presbyterian wing of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs," has long been out in front plumbing for wars, like Iraq, that he and other neocons myopically see as being in Israel's, as well as America's, interest. On the evening of 9/11, Woolsey was already raising with Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings the notion that Iraq was a leading candidate for state sponsorship of the attacks. A day later, Woolsey told journalist James Fallows that, no matter who proved responsible for 9/11, the solution had to include removing Saddam Hussein because he was so likely to be involved the next time (sic).

The latest media hype is also rubbish. And Woolsey knows it. And so do reporters for The Washington Post, who are aware of, but have been forbidden to tell, a highly interesting story about waiting for a key National Intelligence Estimate - as if for Godot.

The NIE That Didn't Bark

The latest National Intelligence Estimate regarding if and when Iran is likely to have the bomb has been ready since February. It has been sent back four times - no doubt because its conclusions do not support what Cheney and Woolsey are telling the president and, through the domesticated press, telling the rest of us as well.

The conclusion of the most recent published NIE (early 2005) was that Iran probably could not acquire a nuclear weapon until "early to mid-next decade," a formula memorized and restated by Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell at his confirmation hearing in February. One can safely assume that McConnell had been fully briefed on the first "final draft" of the new estimate, which has now been in limbo for half a year. And I would wager that the conclusions of the new estimate resemble those of the NIE of 2005 far too closely to suit Cheney.

It is a scandal that the Congressional oversight committees have not been briefed on the conclusions of the new estimate, even though it cannot pass Cheney's smell test. For it is a safe bet it would give the lie to the claims of Cheney, Woolsey and other cheerleaders for war with Iran and provide powerful ammunition to those arguing for a more sensible approach to Iran.

But Attacking Iran Would Be Crazy

Despite the administration's warlike record, many Americans may still cling to the belief that attacking Iran won't happen because it would be crazy; that Bush is a lame-duck president who wouldn't dare undertake yet another reckless adventure when the last one went so badly.

But rationality and common sense have not exactly been the strong suit of this administration. Bush has placed himself in a neoconservative bubble that operates with its own false sense of reality. Worse still: as psychiatrist Justin Frank pointed out in the July 27 VIPS memo, "Dangers of a Cornered Bush,", updating his book "Bush on the Couch:"

"We are left with a president who cannot actually govern, because he is incapable of reasoned thought in coping with events outside his control, like those in the Middle East."

"This makes it a monumental challenge - as urgent as it is difficult - not only to get him to stop the carnage in the Middle East, but also to prevent him from undertaking a new, perhaps even more disastrous adventure - like going to war with Iran, in order to embellish the image he so proudly created for himself after 9/11 as the commander in chief of 'the first war of the 21st century.'"

Scary.

----------

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. During his 27 years as a CIA analyst, he chaired NIEs: he is now on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

[Dan J 277]

First of all, Gary, he spoke in Farsi, not Arabic - find an actual quote of him saying that in Farsi with a verbatim translation into English. He may be a little on the Hitler side of things, but it's best that we get the facts straight before we go to war on what we think he said.

....

So you think Al Jazeera is a western media dupe? Little Hitler has made no bones about his goal to destroy Israel. To think anything else is just fooling yourself.

Name calling & making blanket statements really does nothing for your argument Gary.

Blanket statements? Where? I am only repeating what he said. And "Little Hitler" fits him. His goals and Hitlers goals are the very same.

First of all, Gary, he spoke in Farsi, not Arabic - find an actual quote of him saying that in Farsi with a verbatim translation into English. He may be a little on the Hitler side of things, but it's best that we get the facts straight before we go to war on what we think he said.

....

So you think Al Jazeera is a western media dupe? Little Hitler has made no bones about his goal to destroy Israel. To think anything else is just fooling yourself.

So you're willing to engage with Iran militarily based on that premise? God help us.

On the basis that he wants Israel destroyed? You bet!!!

On that logic, a terrorist group, or another state, has the justification to attack us because we want to destroy Iran.

[GaryC 7]

And "Little Hitler" fits him. His goals and Hitlers goals are the very same.

I don't think he has ambitions of dominating his neighbors the way Hitler did. I agree that he's no model leader for a democracy but we need to tread on careful ground when we're talking about taking military action against a country that has done nothing to us, unless you subscribe to the PNAC's Manifesto. Can we please stop beating the war drums and look for diplomatic solutions? Please, in the name of my children and their children, please stop this nonsense.

For the sake of your children we need to stop these mad-men. It will only get worse if we don't do something. You cannot deal with people like that. Chamberlin thought he could use diplomacy and negotiations to fix the problem with Hitler and it took a world war to fix that. As far as the Jews are concerned he makes Hitler look tolerant.

First of all, Gary, he spoke in Farsi, not Arabic - find an actual quote of him saying that in Farsi with a verbatim translation into English. He may be a little on the Hitler side of things, but it's best that we get the facts straight before we go to war on what we think he said.

....

So you think Al Jazeera is a western media dupe? Little Hitler has made no bones about his goal to destroy Israel. To think anything else is just fooling yourself.

Name calling & making blanket statements really does nothing for your argument Gary.

Blanket statements? Where? I am only repeating what he said. And "Little Hitler" fits him. His goals and Hitlers goals are the very same.

First of all, Gary, he spoke in Farsi, not Arabic - find an actual quote of him saying that in Farsi with a verbatim translation into English. He may be a little on the Hitler side of things, but it's best that we get the facts straight before we go to war on what we think he said.

....

So you think Al Jazeera is a western media dupe? Little Hitler has made no bones about his goal to destroy Israel. To think anything else is just fooling yourself.

So you're willing to engage with Iran militarily based on that premise? God help us.

On the basis that he wants Israel destroyed? You bet!!!

On that logic, a terrorist group, or another state, has the justification to attack us because we want to destroy Iran.

Or for supporting Israel. And they have been, ever heard of 9/11?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

First of all, Gary, he spoke in Farsi, not Arabic - find an actual quote of him saying that in Farsi with a verbatim translation into English. He may be a little on the Hitler side of things, but it's best that we get the facts straight before we go to war on what we think he said.

I dunno - translation issues aside, regardless of the specifics of what he said - I think its possible to read between the lines somewhat as to his intent.

Still - I do see his comments along the lines of "stirring the pot", rather than being explicitly threatening. He doesn't really need to to be honest, and he'd be frankly stupid to tip his hand that way.

Edited September 25, 2007 by Number 6

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

As far as the Jews are concerned he makes Hitler look tolerant.

If Ahmadinejad really wanted to exterminate The Jews, he could easily start right in his own country. Iran is home to the largest Jewish community of any Middle East/North Africa country (outside Israel;) in fact, Iran has the largest Jewish population of any Muslim country.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

As far as the Jews are concerned he makes Hitler look tolerant.

If Ahmadinejad really wanted to exterminate The Jews, he could easily start right in his own country. Iran is home to the largest Jewish community of any Middle East/North Africa country (outside Israel;) in fact, Iran has the largest Jewish population of any Muslim country.

Excellent point.

[GaryC 7]

As far as the Jews are concerned he makes Hitler look tolerant.

If Ahmadinejad really wanted to exterminate The Jews, he could easily start right in his own country. Iran is home to the largest Jewish community of any Middle East/North Africa country (outside Israel;) in fact, Iran has the largest Jewish population of any Muslim country.

Sound familure?

Iran: Jews, Christians Must Wear Badges

In a move reminiscent of the Nazis forcing Jews to wear a Star of David insignia, Iran’s parliament has reportedly passed a law requiring Jews, Christians and other religious minorities to wear color-coded badges to identify them as non-Muslims.

The law would also set a dress code for all Iranians, requiring them to wear "standard Islamic garments.”

The law, which must be approved by Iran's "Supreme Leader" Ali Khamenei before taking effect, requires Iran's roughly 25,000 Jews to sew a yellow strip of cloth on the front of their clothes. Christians would be forced to wear red badges and Zoroastrians would wear blue cloth, according to Canada’s National Post.

"This is reminiscent of the Holocaust," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles.

"Iran is moving closer and closer to the ideology of the Nazis."

Bernie Farber, chief executive of the Canadian Jewish Congress, agrees.

"There are some frightening parallels here,” he told the National Post.

"We thought this had gone the way of the dodo bird, but clearly in Iran everything old and bad is new again. It's state-sponsored religious discrimination."

The new law was drafted two years ago, but lingered in the Iranian parliament until recently when it was revived at the urging of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/200...19/155943.shtml

[no name 1]

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/200...19/155943.shtml

Newsmax.com - so reliable! Anyhow, that post is from May 2006 Gary. Try again.

PS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Iranian_...law_controversy

On May 19, 2006, the National Post of Canada published pieces by Amir Taheri and Chris Wattie claiming that the Iranian parliament had passed a sumptuary law mandating a national dress code for all Iranians, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

Both National Post articles went on to say that non-Muslim religious minorities in Iran would be required to wear "special insignia": yellow for Jews, red for Christians and blue for Zoroastrian. According to the article by Taheri, "[t]he new codes would enable Muslims to easily recognize non-Muslims so that they can avoid shaking hands with them by mistake, and thus becoming najis (unclean)."[1] According to both articles, Iranian Muslims would have to wear "standard Islamic garments".

Numerous other sources, including Maurice Motamed, the Jewish member of the Iranian parliament and the Iranian Embassy in Canada, refuted the report as untrue. The National Post later retracted Wattie's original article ("Iran eyes badges for Jews: Law would require non-Muslim insignia") and published an article, also by Wattie, to the contrary ("Experts say reports of badges for Jews in Iran is untrue"). [2]. Wattie's original article listed only "human rights groups" and "Iranian expatriates living in Canada" as its sources. Amir Taheri made a statement on May 22 saying the National Post story he authored was used by "a number of reports that somehow jumped the gun" and that he stands by the article. Amir states he raised the issue "not as a news story" but rather "as an opinion column".[3].

The Associated Press later refuted the Post report as well, saying that "a draft law moving through parliament encourages Iranians to wear Islamic clothing to protect the country's Muslim identity but does not mention special attire for religious minorities, according to a copy obtained Saturday by The Associated Press." [4] Reuters also reported that "A copy of the bill obtained by Reuters contained no such references. Reuters correspondents who followed the dress code session in parliament as it was broadcast on state radio heard no discussion of proscriptions for religious minorities."[5]

Edited September 25, 2007 by devilette

[one...two...tree 2,762]

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/200...19/155943.shtml

Newsmax.com - so reliable! Anyhow, that post is from May 2006 Gary. Try again.

PS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Iranian_...law_controversy

On May 19, 2006, the National Post of Canada published pieces by Amir Taheri and Chris Wattie claiming that the Iranian parliament had passed a sumptuary law mandating a national dress code for all Iranians, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

Both National Post articles went on to say that non-Muslim religious minorities in Iran would be required to wear "special insignia": yellow for Jews, red for Christians and blue for Zoroastrian. According to the article by Taheri, "[t]he new codes would enable Muslims to easily recognize non-Muslims so that they can avoid shaking hands with them by mistake, and thus becoming najis (unclean)."[1] According to both articles, Iranian Muslims would have to wear "standard Islamic garments".

Numerous other sources, including Maurice Motamed, the Jewish member of the Iranian parliament and the Iranian Embassy in Canada, refuted the report as untrue. The National Post later retracted Wattie's original article ("Iran eyes badges for Jews: Law would require non-Muslim insignia") and published an article, also by Wattie, to the contrary ("Experts say reports of badges for Jews in Iran is untrue"). [2]. Wattie's original article listed only "human rights groups" and "Iranian expatriates living in Canada" as its sources. Amir Taheri made a statement on May 22 saying the National Post story he authored was used by "a number of reports that somehow jumped the gun" and that he stands by the article. Amir states he raised the issue "not as a news story" but rather "as an opinion column".[3].

The Associated Press later refuted the Post report as well, saying that "a draft law moving through parliament encourages Iranians to wear Islamic clothing to protect the country's Muslim identity but does not mention special attire for religious minorities, according to a copy obtained Saturday by The Associated Press." [4] Reuters also reported that "A copy of the bill obtained by Reuters contained no such references. Reuters correspondents who followed the dress code session in parliament as it was broadcast on state radio heard no discussion of proscriptions for religious minorities."[5]

PWND!

[GaryC 7]

Ok, I am so wrong. Iran is such a nice place. They are Israels best friend and the USA is just causing trouble. Jeez