Jim Wallis: Words, Not War, With Iran
As the diplomatic dance with Iran continues, the rumors of war are increasing. European Union and Iranian diplomats have been meeting this week in intensive negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program. News stories have been optimistic on the one hand, noting that the U.S. government was holding off on pushing for sanctions against Iran while the talks continued and the possibility that Iran might be willing to stop its enriching of uranium in return for economic incentives.
On the other hand, several news sources have reported moves toward possible U.S. military strikes against Iran. A recent Time magazine cover story asked, What Would War Look Like?. It noted that “from the State Department to the White House to the highest reaches of the military command, there is a growing sense that a showdown with Iran … may be impossible to avoid.” But in the current situation, with the violence in Iraq spiraling out of control, a U.S. attack on Iran would likely be a disaster, simply adding more fuel to the bloodshed and creating more terrorists. As the National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism released this week concluded, “The Iraq conflict has become the ‘cause celebre’ for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world….” An attack on Iran would make that resentment far worse.
As a statement by 21 U.S. military, national security, and foreign policy officials - released in August - said, “We strongly caution against any consideration of the use of military force against Iran.The current crises must be resolved through diplomacy, not military action. An attack on Iran would have disastrous consequences for security in the region ...."
On Tuesday, Sojourners/Call to Renewal and Faithful Security released a statement signed by more than 100 Christian, Jewish, and Muslim religious leaders urging “Words, Not War, With Iran.” I participated in a press conference with Dr. Susannah Heschel, Dr. Louay of the Islamic Society of North America, Brian McLaren, and Dr. Trita Parsi of the Iranian-American Council to discuss the statement with reporters.
Our statement said, “While we agree Iran should not support terrorism or obtain nuclear weapons, we come together as religious leaders to urge that the U.S. engage in direct negotiations with Iran as an alternative to military action in resolving the crisis.” We reject anti-Semitism and threats of attack against Israel made by Iran, but believe that the only solution to the nuclear issue is a negotiated settlement. And we root our concern in our belief that “The teachings of the Abrahamic tradition command us to keep human life sacred and to act as stewards of creation. We consider all weapons of mass destruction — whether nuclear, biological, or chemical — immoral and unacceptable for use in any circumstances.”
Our statement concludes, “The moral wisdom of many religious leaders and the pragmatic warnings of many military leaders now offer a common message – “Words, Not War, With Iran.” I invite you to join us in signing this statement. You can find the complete text of the statement, a list of the signers, and add your name at www.wordsnotwar.org.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
We are pursuing negotiations. What value are negotiations if there is no possibility that they will be backed up by actions. What if the conversations is
UN: Iran, please give up your nuclear weapons.
Iran: Nope
Where do "negotiations" leave us then. And if they fail, and Iran develops a nuclear bomb, what do we do? Let them use it?>
Posted by: kevin s. | September 29, 2006 10:43 PM
Kevin,
You seem confused about what is really happening between Bush and Iran right now.
The current fake negotiations you refer to are just a rerun of Bush's fake negotiations building up
to his invasion of Iraq.
Bush's insincere gestures at diplomacy were only a cloak covering his true intentions.
Bush had made his decision to invade Iraq well before 9/11.
This has been proven.
And Bush has already decided to attack Iran.
While Bush postures as if he were negotiating with Iran, his actions reveal his true intentions.
He has sent another carrier battlegroup to the Gulf.
At the same time, Bush is making public statements containing veiled threats intended to provoke Iran's leaders into an escalating war of words, culminating in a war with Iran, which he will try to blame on Iran, just like he did in Iraq.
Warmongers don't employ diplomacy or negotiations to avoid war, they threaten their adversaries and then they attack.
I see no evidence of a sincere attempt on Bush's part to engage in good faith diplomacy to resolve the issue of Iran's nuclear program without war.
Last week Bush shunned Iran's prime minister at the United Nations.
They were in the same building on the same day.
Do you think this is evidence of Bush making serious negotiations to head off a war with Iran?
If you set aside overblown claims and deceptive statements from the Bush administration and seek out the facts for yourself, you will discover that Iran's nuclear threat is a mirage created by the Bush administration to justify attacking Iran.
Are you going to follow Bush into a nuclear war without questioning his intentions?
I signed the Words Not War Statement offered by Jim Wallis and friends.
Are you doing anything to avoid a war with Iran, Kevin?
Do you care?
I'm not overly hopeful Bush will care what millions of us think about his war with Iran.
He ignored millions of us, including his best military generals and diplomats, even his own father, when he invaded Iraq.
Bush is a warmonger and he will do it again if we don't stop him.
Kevin, you're following a warmonger and you're too lazy to find out the truth.
.>
Posted by: justintime | September 30, 2006 12:54 AM
Do you seriously think that negotiations are going to work with these people? They are buying time to finish working on a nuclear weapon. Negotiating with Iran at this point is the same as Chamberlain negotiating with Germany in the 1930s. Only this time, the stakes are even higher because the threat is nuclear. Do you think that turning the other cheek in this instance requires us to stand by and allow Iran to become a nuclear threat not only to Israel and its neighbors, but to us as well?>
Posted by: SB | September 30, 2006 12:54 AM
SB,
Of course negotiations will be effective with Iran.
They are not crazy fools.
If Bush would just stay out of it, I think the adult leaders of the world will be able to resolve this quite effectively without bloodshed.
America survived a nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union for decades without direct military conflict.
Do you think Iran is a more serious threat than the Soviet Union was?
Experts on nuclear weapons say Iran is 10 years away from having even one nuclear weapon.
Israel is armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons.
If Iran were to attack Israel with a nuclear weapon they would be annihilated.
And they know this.
Don't give in to fear, CB.
And don't spread it either.
.>
Posted by: justintime | September 30, 2006 1:19 AM
I read the "Words not War" statement, and it is truly a shallow, half-baked document, inane both theologically and politically. While the drafters "agree Iran should not support terrorism or obtain nuclear weapons," the drafters cannot state what means western nations may use to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear arsenal, nor can they explain why Iran should not proceed with its nuclear program.
If we are to engage in negotiations while foreswearing the military strikes, there is an obvious question that needds to be answered: what exactly can we offer the Iranians that will pursuade them top give up the prestige of joining the nuclear club, or the power that comes with being able to threaten their neighbors with a nuclear strike?
This is not to say that such a package of incentives cannot be put together, or that this would not be an improvement over the military option. But if the peace party cannot give us at least an educated guess at what this package might look like, their plea for negotiations is almost guaranteed to result in a nuclear-armed Iran -- an outcome they themselves consider unacceptable.
The drafters of "Words Not War" will all the right ends but cannot say anything about effective means. The statement reeks of magical thinking: if you do what we say, things will all work out, somehow. That's not good enough.
The President will, in all likelihood, ignore this statement. He will be right to do so. "Words Not War" is a waste of good words.
Wolverine>
Posted by: Wolverine | September 30, 2006 2:29 AM
Wolverine,
You too, appear to be confused about what Bush is doing.
You can't see that the problem here is Bush.
This is because you desperately want to believe in Bush.
Bush won't negotiate this situation in good faith because Bush created the situation himself.
Bush has already decided to attack Iran, just as he had already decided to invade Iraq before he staged his fake negotiations with Saddam.
As I stated in a previous post,
If Bush would just stay out of it, I think the adult leaders of the world will be able to resolve this quite effectively without bloodshed.
Bush is a warmonger.
Warmongers never negotiate in good faith.
Hitler didn't negotiate in good faith.
And neither does Bush.
Warmongers sell their wars by using fear on their own citizens.
You've given in to Bush's fear offensive on the American people.
I didn't think Wolverines got scared that easily.
.>
Posted by: justintime | September 30, 2006 3:02 AM
justintime wrote:
Bush won't negotiate this situation in good faith because Bush created the situation himself.
So I take it that you believe Bush initiated the Iranian nuclear weapons program?
You can't see that the problem here is Bush.
This is because you desperately want to believe in Bush.
...
You've given in to Bush's fear offensive on the American people.
I didn't think Wolverines got scared that easily.
I have a theory about your state of mind too. Would you like to hear it?
Wolverine>
Posted by: Wolverine | September 30, 2006 3:48 AM
I have read several articles about this matter and come to the conclusion that either you are misguided or intentional uninformed. Osama bin Ladin and the President of Iran has called on America to convert. They do not believe in multicultural diversity and will force the point with the barrel of a gun. The overwhelming evidence is clear on this matter, just a superficial search on the internet will reveal several sites that translate the text of speeches from Arabic and Farsi into English that reveal exactly what these leaders and others in the Islamic world intend. Diplomacy will only allow these individuals the time to prepare themselves and their associates to attack the West and specifically the United States. Do some research and inform yourself, because otherwise you will aid and give comfort to our enemies and the blood of the innocents that will be murdered will be on your hands.>
Posted by: Arxland | September 30, 2006 4:01 AM
This blog is a great place to hear additional thoughts about the values of "God's Politics" from Jim Wallis and Brian McLaren and Amy Sullivan and Sister Helen and Christine Sine.
Generally, what is lacking is a place for bipartisanship to occur.
The comments are largely attacks from the right followed by defense from the left... similar to what already has been occurring for years in DC and state capitols for the topics of abortion and gay marriage.
And, there are also some very good efforts by some very thoughtful persons from left and right who want to actually communicate.>
Posted by: Michael Hayes | September 30, 2006 4:14 AM
The teachings of the Abrahamic tradition command us to keep human life sacred and to act as stewards of creation. We consider all weapons of mass destruction whether nuclear, biological, or chemical immoral and unacceptable for use in any circumstances.
Jim, I don't understand why "conventiional means of mass destruction and killing such as land mines, cluster bombs, or really all bombs and automatic weapons are not included here.
Arxland, what do you think of Jesus statement "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God"?
How do your own statements differ from the most violent of the jihadists?>
Posted by: Joseph | September 30, 2006 4:19 AM
The Apostle Paul said that "we are to be at peace with all men as far as it concerns us." That is my position. What is their position? By their own writings and speeches it is not peace. Their intentions are not peaceful and they say so. The real question is whether or not we are going to take them at their word.>
Posted by: Arxland | September 30, 2006 4:29 AM
Arxland,
Where did you find the several articles you read about the Middle East?
I don't think you are as well informed as you think you are.
And you're assuming I haven't taken the effort to inform myself about these things.
From your statements, I'm pretty certain that I'm much better informed on Iran, America, George Bush, the Middle East and terrorism than you are.
I've read everything I can get my hands on, including many books written by people who understand the cultures of the Middle East, by military and intelligence professionals, translations of speeches made by terrorist leaders as well as the propaganda being disseminated by the Bush administration to instill fear into people like you.
I base my conclusions, which I offer here, on my knowledge from all sides of this issue and cold, hard logic.
Fear is the name of the Bush warmongering game.
Fear is about all it takes to get humans to be willing to kill each other.
Fear is what it took for Hitler to drive the German people into their tragic war.
Fear is what it takes for someone like you to call me a traitor.
And you sound like you are full of fear.
Mark my words, Arxland, you are following a warmonger.
Bush has you afraid and under his control.
You are willing to follow Bush into a war which will kill thousands of innocent people.
May God have mercy on you.
.>
Posted by: justintime | September 30, 2006 4:43 AM
What if the conversation is
Rest of the World: USA, please give up your nuclear weapons.
USA: Nope
Where do "negotiations" leave the Rest of the World then? And if they fail, and USA develops a nuclear bomb, what does the Rest of the World do? Let them use it?>
Posted by: D4P | September 30, 2006 4:59 AM
D4P:
I'll grant you, that's an interesting hypothetical, but we're going far afield here.
The "Words Not War" statement, signed by Jim Wallis himself, says nothing about the US nuclear arsenal. It does say that Iran "should not support terrorism or obtain nuclear weapons".
The question I would like to hear someone address is: In the absence of a military option, what can we offer Iran's leaders that will persuade them to cease their nuclear weapons program?
Anybody have an answer? Anybody at all?
Bueller? Bueller?
Wolverine>
Posted by: Wolverine | September 30, 2006 5:08 AM
Please, list your sources. All I know is what I read in newspapers and on the internet. Outside of that I spent 20 years in the Infantry and I am married to a European and have spent several years in different countries outside of the United States. I don't pledge allegiance to men nor am I a follower of politicians. Life has taught me many lessons and one of them is to be sceptical of "peace at any price" as the better alternative. You may pretend to be so much better informed that everyone else, but your solution will lead to war. Adolf Hitler wanted war and did everything in his power to mislead and lull the rest of Europe and the United States. How many lives were lost because we were not prepared? Because we wanted to believe in his good intentions. You seem to be prepared to believe that Iran has good intentions, but what if they are just trying to lull us into a false sense of security. Will diplomacy work then? How many will have to die? I believe in peace through strength. What do you believe? Where will you stand if their intentions are evil?>
Posted by: Arxland | September 30, 2006 5:10 AM
In the absence of a military option, what can we offer Iran's leaders that will persuade them to cease their nuclear weapons program?
What right does the country with the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons known to man have to ask other countries not to amass a similar stockpile? If our stockpile is strictly to serve as a disincentive to other countries to attack us, why shouldn't other countries be able to possess the same disincentive?
And I don't buy any kind of "But the US would never actually use its nuclear weapons, while other countries would." Unless I'm mistaken, only one country has ever dropped an atomic bomb on another, and said country was a "Christian" nation, not a bunch of "radical, fanatical, Islamic terrorists.">
Posted by: D4P | September 30, 2006 5:15 AM
I believe in peace through strength
i.e. "Peace through war." "Love through hate.">
Posted by: D4P | September 30, 2006 5:16 AM
I believe that the only option short of military action (war) is to close the Staits of Hormuz and not allow any Iranian petroleum out. That will offer them a peaceful way to think of their alternatives to nuclear weapons.>
Posted by: Arxland | September 30, 2006 5:17 AM
D4P. Could you give us the context of the United States dropping that atomic bomb? Because without the context of that action you give the impression that the United States just went and dropped an atomic bomb for no reason. Did the United States have a reason?>
Posted by: Arxland | September 30, 2006 5:20 AM
Okay, I'll take it upon myself to put together a program for you. You tell me if I'm on the right track.
Top Ten things that Might Coax the Islamic Republic of Iran to Abandon their Nuclear Program.
10. We nuke Israel for them. (Alternatively, we could agree to evacuate all Jews from Israel and relocate them in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.)
9. Andalusia returned to Muslim control.
8. Nuke Vegas.
7. Abolish the Designated Hitter Rule
6. Paris Hilton to introduce new line of burkas
5. Hand over every virgin in Cleveland.
4. All right, we'll let you open a Hooters in Medina.
3. Is the Pope Catholic? Nope, He's a Shiite!
2. Oh heck, you don't need to build nukes on your own, we'll let you have a couple of ours. Just don't stand too close when you set them off.
1. A reassuring hug.
Wolverine>
Posted by: Wolverine | September 30, 2006 5:27 AM
Of course they had a reason, just as the people who flew the planes into the World Trade Center had a reason for doing so.
When you believe that "ends justify means," all that is necessary is to have a "reason" (i.e. an "end"), and the means themselves become immune to scrutiny or debate. Achieving the end will be done by using "Whatever means necessary."
I personally believe that God cares about both ends and means, and that means too can be sinful. The fact that a righteous end is being pursued does not, in my opinion, legitimize any means necessary to achieve that end.>
Posted by: D4P | September 30, 2006 5:27 AM
The Iranian leader is a madman. How in the world do you negotiate with someone like that?>
Posted by: Gordon | September 30, 2006 5:31 AM
Okay, back to brass tacks:
D4P wrote:
What right does the country with the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons known to man have to ask other countries not to amass a similar stockpile? If our stockpile is strictly to serve as a disincentive to other countries to attack us, why shouldn't other countries be able to possess the same disincentive?
Be sure and let Jim Wallis and the rest of the "Words Not War" crowd know what a bunch of cowards they are for criticizing the Iranian nuclear program while failing to condemn the American nuclear arsenal.
Look, I hate to break this to you, but this has very little to do with "rights" and everything to do with global stability.
The US has had atomic/nuclear weapons for over 60 years without using them. The last time we did use them came at the end of a declared war, after issuing a warning, and was done to avoid the need for an invasion that had the potential to cause even greater loss of life.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is headed up by a religious caste that combines rabid anti-semitism and a belief in a bizarre Islamic apocalypse that makes "Left Behind" look like "Bridget Jones' Diary"
Even if you view the American nuclear arsenal as a threat, I don't see how an Iranian nuclear arsenal makes the world safer. And neither, apparently, does Jim Wallis. Or is Wallis himself not sufficiently committed to "Peace"?
Wolverine>
Posted by: Wolverine | September 30, 2006 5:45 AM
D4P - Pacifism at any price? Peace at any price? Where is this taught in the Bible? The Apostle Paul said that "we (Christians) are to be at peace with all men as far as it concerns us." That is my position, but what do you propose to do when they believe in the opposite and bring the war to you, as they did at the WTC, the Pentagon, and that field in Pennsylvania on 9/11. These men were not poor, uneducated, homeless, but were just the opposite. They were believers in a cause, and they were willing to give their lives for that cause. How do you propose to deal with that?>
Posted by: Arxland | September 30, 2006 5:46 AM
They were believers in a cause, and they were willing to give their lives for that cause. How do you propose to deal with that?
It seems to me that Christians who are more concerned about protecting their own lives than showing Christ to the rest of the world are, unlike the believers you mention, NOT willing to give their lives for their cause.
There seems to be an assumption on the part of some that "If a particular course of action threatens my personal security, it can't possibly be God's will. If trying to be peaceful means I might be killed, of course God doesn't want me to be peaceful."
Jesus, Paul, and others refused to prioritize self-protection above all, choosing instead to continue spreading the gospel at their own peril. As a result, they were killed. Why should we be any different?>
Posted by: D4P | September 30, 2006 5:55 AM
D4P wrote:
There seems to be an assumption on the part of some that "If a particular course of action threatens my personal security, it can't possibly be God's will. If trying to be peaceful means I might be killed, of course God doesn't want me to be peaceful."
This is wrong on so many levels I don't know where to start.
First: Nobody is alleging that the Iranians have a missile capable of reaching the US. So either this presents no direct threat to Americans, OR
You are admitting that the Iranians have close ties to radical Islamic terrorists who might attempt to smuggle a nuclear bomb into the United States.
EITHER WAY the death toll would be more than just me or Arxland or Gordon, or Jim Wallis, or the four of us combined. Depending on the yield we could be looking at the deaths of thousands, hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of Americans. Or maybe peace-loving Europeans. Or Israelis. Or even conceivably Mulsims who don't happen to belong to the right sect.
So awful of us, to be concerned about our friends, fellow Americans, and allies around the world.
God have mercy on us.
Wolverine>
Posted by: Anonymous | September 30, 2006 6:22 AM
So awful of us, to be concerned about our friends, fellow Americans, and allies around the world.
We don't seem too concerned about the 40,000+? Iraqis we have bombed over the past few years since "Mission Accomplished" was declared. But I guess they don't count. They're just a "comma.">
Posted by: D4P | September 30, 2006 6:27 AM
D4P also wrote:
Jesus, Paul, and others refused to prioritize self-protection above all, choosing instead to continue spreading the gospel at their own peril. As a result, they were killed. Why should we be any different?
Which leads me to another question: Just how would an Iranian nuke spread the gospel?
Wolverine>
Posted by: Anonymous | September 30, 2006 6:28 AM
Just how would an Iranian nuke spread the gospel?
It wouldn't, just as bombing Iraqi villages and torturing human beings does not spread the gospel. Loving one's enemies, praying for those who persecute us, and refusing to repay evil for evil spreads the gospel (or at least part of it, a part with which the current administration is apparently unfamiliar).>
Posted by: D4P | September 30, 2006 6:35 AM
I've got a busy day tomorrow, but one last comment before I hit the sack:
Believe it or not, I'm open to debate on the Iraq War issue, and I'm open to creative, non-violent solutions to the Iranian Nuclear crisis as well.
I would very much like to see coherent, well-thought-out policies. But what I see instead is denial, magical thinking, personal accusations, and now an odd disregard for human life wrapped in something that I guess is supposed to be Christian piety but on closer inspection looks like plain old fatalism.
Is this really the best that the Christian Left has to offer? Yuck.
Wolverine>
Posted by: Wolverine | September 30, 2006 6:40 AM
d4p: Where is this "doctrine" taught in the Bible? The Apostle Paul said that we "were to lead quite and sober lives" and the Apostle Peter said that we are to "be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; and to keep a good conscience..." but I have never read where we were to give ourselves over to murderers just because they wanted to kill us or make us convert. We are commanded to be "epistles that are to be read of men," but not targets to appease religious killers. I believe that you need to buy yourself a ticket and go to Pakistan or Jordan and put this into practice so that you can show the rest of us how its done; spreading the Gospel in Islamic countries under Sharia law is punishable by stoning. When do you plan to leave?>
Posted by: Arxland | September 30, 2006 6:41 AM
I have never read where we were to give ourselves over to murderers just because they wanted to kill us or make us convert
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego...?
You are assuming that refusing to fight evil with evil will necessarily result in our slaughter. I am assuming that being obedient to God can "work," even when logic and human reason tell us it can't.
I believe that you need to buy yourself a ticket and go to Pakistan or Jordan and put this into practice so that you can show the rest of us how its done
Would that I had the courage to do so. Unfortunately, I'm a sinner who is probably not willing to risk my own personal safety for my faith. But I'm working on that, and I hope someday to be that faithful.>
Posted by: D4P | September 30, 2006 6:47 AM
magical thinking
How does "magical thinking" differ from prayer and faith in a God who cannot be seen, who works in mysterious ways, and who performs "miracles"?>
Posted by: D4P | September 30, 2006 6:49 AM
d4p: Do you believe that the New Testament sanctions the death penalty?>
Posted by: Arxland | September 30, 2006 7:02 AM
Do you believe that the New Testament sanctions the death penalty?
Given that you're asking, I'm assuming the answer is Yes. I know the Old Testament does, and that people were to be put to death for all kinds of seemingly minor infractions.
Among other things, though, experience has shown that we're not very good at implementing the death penalty. Newly available DNA testing suggests that a not insignificant number of not-guilty persons have been put to death, and other evidence suggests that certain demographic groups (e.g. black males) are much more likely to be put to death for the same crimes than other groups (e.g. white males). Plus, it seems to me that prison is among the most convenient and effective locations to spread the gospel. I'm sure we've all heard of many inmates accepting Christ, who presumably wouldn't have done so had they been put to death instead of put in prison.>
Posted by: D4P | September 30, 2006 7:07 AM
d4p: The New Testament teaches us that we (Christians) are not the judge the world (non Christians), God will judge the world on the last day, but we are commanded to "discern good from evil" and to judge among ourselves (Christians within the local congregation) and put the evil out from us until they repent, then accept them back as brethen. The principle of forgive and forget is paramount for Christians. The biggest problem that I have with the Christian "left" is their view of biblical teachings. The Bible is either the Word of God or its not, biblical scholarship has provided a good case for the authenticity of our present Bible, so the question is this, "do we believe and practice what it teaches" or "do we let it go?" My experience with "leftwing" Christians is that they do not believe in Biblical doctrines where it conflicts with their "progressive socialist" thinking. Where do you stand on this?>
Posted by: Arxland | September 30, 2006 7:23 AM
put the evil out from us until they repent, then accept them back as brethen
Killing people does not give them a chance to repent.
My experience with "leftwing" Christians is that they do not believe in Biblical doctrines where it conflicts with their "progressive socialist" thinking. Where do you stand on this?
Actually, the reason I am attracted to "progressive socialist" thinking is that I believe it comes closer to Christ's teachings than does conservative capitalist thinking.
In my experience, "rightwing" Christians do not believe in Biblical doctrines where they conflict with capitalism, nationalism, etc.>
Posted by: D4P | September 30, 2006 7:35 AM
d4p: Christians do not have the authority to kill "apostate" Christians. Has that happened lately in America?>
Posted by: Arxland | September 30, 2006 7:46 AM
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.>
Posted by: D4P | September 30, 2006 7:48 AM
Make no mistake, Bush's wars in the Islamic world are all about oil, not "freedom and democracy".
This shouldn't surprise anyone.
After all, America is presently ruled by the petroleum industry.
Contrary to Bush warmongering propaganda, Iran and Al Qaeda are not allies, and Islamic terrorism is not monolithic.
Iran is Shiite and Al Qaeda is inspired by Wahhabism, a radically fundamentalistic Sunni group - two antagonistic branches of Islam.
Saddam's Iraq, being a secular Islamic republic, was anathema to Al Qaeda,who believe in a return to the glorious days of the caliphate and Islamic law.
And yet Bush sold America on the idea that Iraq was behind 9/11, to justify his invasion of Iraq.
A surprising number of Americans still believe that Iraq was behind 9/11 which has been proven false.
The Bush compliant media bears the blame for misinforming America on this.
Islamic politics is a lot more subtle and complicated than the Bush administration would have us believe.
To treat the Islamic world as if it is one monolithic enemy is to make a disastrous mistake.
At least 90% of all terroristic acts around the world are inspired by the injustices of foreign occupation and economic domination of Islamic countries.
Terrorist movements are primarily nationalistic and not religiously inspired.
Hamas and Al Fatah oppose Israel's occupation and the injustices inflicted on the Palestinian people.
Al Qaeda opposes the feudalistic Saud regime in Saudi Arabia.
Hezbollah opposed Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon and succeeded in driving Israel out of outhern Lebanon.
Their success has inspired them to attack Israel directly, which is considered a foreign occupation as well.
It's important to understand that terrorism is inspired by foreign occupation of Islamic countries and the resultant social injustice.
This is the key to defeating terrorism.
Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, is not a madman.
Sometimes he seems to be playing Bush for a fool.
Iran is winning Bush's war in Iraq, without losing any of their troops or financial resources.
To better understand America's relationship to Iran, I highly recommend Karen Armstrong's book, The Battle for God.
Our relationship with Iran begins with British-American exploitation of Iran's oil resources.
In 1953, the Iranian government moved to nationalize their oil resources and Musaddiq was elected premier.
The CIA engineered a coup and Mussadiq was deposed, with the Shah installed in a Monarchy.
The petroleum industry found the Shah more cooperative.
However, by the late 70's the Shah had become despotic, perhaps not as despotic as Saddam, but certainly an enemy of the people.
The Shah became associated in the minds of Iranians as an American puppet dictator, which he was.
And America became tagged as "The Great Satan".
The Shah was finally deposed by a popular revolution at the cost of many thousands of patriot martyrs.
This is why the American embassy in Tehran was taken over by students and Americans held hostage.
And of course the Reagan administration backed Saddam in his war against Iran, in which millions lost their lives.
Given the history of our relationship, is it any wonder that the government of Iran views America with great suspicion.
It's true that Iran is currently ruled by an Islamic government.
But most scholars of Iranian politics agree that Iran is strongly attracted to Western culture and is trending towards secularism.
The Islamic government is incompetent in managing Iran's economy and Iranians yearn for a more liberalised culture.
Sadly, Bush's aggressive acts are making natural social change in Iran problematic.
Iran's Islamic government will gain complete control of nationalistic resistance to American aggression.
And Iran's reformers will have to go underground for the indefinite future.
The Bush administration is only increasing the threat of Islamic terrorism, as the recently released National Intelligence Estimate concludes.
.>
Posted by: justintime | September 30, 2006 7:48 AM
d4p: I think you are confusing the responsibilities of individuals vs. the duties of government. The applications of one to the other will cause conflicted thinking.>
Posted by: Arxland | September 30, 2006 7:53 AM
Justintime: Are you a member of the Noam Chomsky School of Foreign Policy and the Howard Zinn School of Rewriting History? Do you honestly believe the United States is ruled by the Petroleum industry? Please explain this, I'm listening.>
Posted by: Arxland | September 30, 2006 7:57 AM
I think you are confusing the responsibilities of individuals vs. the duties of government
But governments are made up of individuals, each of whom (in my estimation) still has a responsibility to obey God (assuming they're Christians). What message does it send to non-Christians when the president claims to be a Christian but then does not follow Christ in his governing? What is it about a Christian "war president" and torturer that shows Christ to the world, and how is a Christian "war president" and torturer any different from a secular one?>
Posted by: D4P | September 30, 2006 7:58 AM
Justintime: Please explain why you left out the former Soviet Union in this analysis of Mid East political history and the part they played in creating this mess, along with the British and the French.>
Posted by: Arxland | September 30, 2006 8:00 AM
d4p: This is not a "Christian" country and has not been governed that way for a while. We as a nation still have a residual Christian thought forms and structures, but the basis for the morality has long ago left this country and thus the government. If Mr. Bush governed according to NT teaching, he would outlaw deeds of the flesh, adultry, fornication, drunkeness, gambling, homosexuality, ect...(Gal. 5:20-21) Are you saying that you are in agreement with this?>
Posted by: Arxland | September 30, 2006 8:07 AM
If Mr. Bush governed according to NT teaching, he would outlaw deeds of the flesh, adultry, fornication, drunkeness, gambling, homosexuality, ect...(Gal. 5:20-21) Are you saying that you are in agreement with this?
My point is not that "The president of the US should govern according to Christian principles." My point is that "If the president is going to claim to be a Christian and claim to be doing the will of God, then s/he should govern according to Christian principles." And, if the president is going to support a ban on gay marriage because the Bible says homosexuality is a a sin, then s/he should support bans on "adultery, fornication, drunkeness, gambling, etc.">
Posted by: D4P | September 30, 2006 8:13 AM
I've read some of Chomsky's books and I'm familiar with Zinn's work, but I'm not a joiner.
I'm a seeker.
I agree with you that military power is part of the formula for peace on earth.
But friendly, cooperative allies around the world are equally important.
Bush has foolishly squandered our military power and our reputation with his arrogance and ambitions for an American empire.
To say that the petroleum industry rules America is a simplification but is not far from the truth.
To me it's become obvious that an alliance of large corporations hold power over our government and our communications media.
And the petroleum industry has us all by the short hairs, wouldn't you say?
Bush, Cheney and Rice are all petroleum industry power brokers.
America's military adventures in the Middle East and Central Asia are clearly intended to dominate the remaining petroleum resources on the planet.
Energy independance for America is not in the best interest of the petroleum and so progress on this front has been slow.
Wouldn't it be great if we didn't have to deal with corrupt Islamic dictatorships for our economic life blood?
Your earlier comment about closing the Strait of Hormuz would be a mistake and result in disaster for the global economy.
I could say a lot more but I'm about to turn in for the night.
.>
Posted by: justintime | September 30, 2006 8:23 AM
How would you say he should go about doing this? Congress makes the laws here, the President enforces them. I think that there is a different agenda at work here. Is there? What would the Christian "left" have Mr. Bush do? Mr. Clinton said he was a Christian and so does his wife. Should Mr. Bush follow Mr. Clinton's example in carrying out his duties?>
Posted by: Arxland | September 30, 2006 8:23 AM
Arxland,
I didn't intentionally leave out the former Soviet Union, the French and the British from my analysis of Iran/America relationships.
They do bear some responsibility but it's a complicated story - maybe we can talk about it tomorrow.
.>
Posted by: justintime | September 30, 2006 8:30 AM
Justintime: If the Petroleum industry or large corporations ruled this country and controlled the media in a group type conspiracy with Bush, Cheney, and Rice. Why isn't there drilling in Alaska, off shore California, Florida. Why has the media produced such negative coverage of Mr. Bush, according the Media Research Council, 79% this year, 76% last year, 72% the year before, whereas the worst coverage during the Clinton Administration was 56%, during the Lewinsky scandal. This conspiracy falls apart pretty quickly when you examine the parts.>
Posted by: Arxland | September 30, 2006 8:31 AM
Congress makes the laws here, the President enforces them
In theory, maybe. In practice, Bush does pretty much whatever he wants. And if he breaks a law, he just changes it to immunize himself.
What would the Christian "left" have Mr. Bush do?
Jim Wallis has written many letters to the Bush admin. detailing exactly what some on the Christian "left" would have Mr. Bush do, with respect to national defense, spending priorities, the environment, etc. Mr. Bush doesn pretty much exactly the opposite on all counts.
Should Mr. Bush follow Mr. Clinton's example in carrying out his duties?
If you mean "receiving oral sex from an intern in the Oval Office," then no. If you mean things like "working to ensure that everyone has health insurance, working to protect the environment, building positive relationships with other countries, producing a budget surplus, etc.", then yes.>
Posted by: D4P | September 30, 2006 8:32 AM
I'll be here in the afternoon. I am recovering from an operation and the medications are screwing with my sleep schedule. Some would say my thinking, Ha!>
Posted by: Arxland | September 30, 2006 8:33 AM
The problem on the right that I see is that they worship the bible over the living person of Christ. I tell you now the Christ is bigger than the 5,000 years of history, myth, allegory and parable located in the bible. He is much bigger. The word of God is in the pages of the bible but not the bible itself. There is a difference and for some odd reason conservatives fail to realize it.
Oh yah I know why they need laws to justify their existence. They need structure w/o having a deeper relationship w/ the holy spirit. For all this talk of protecting americans (nationalism) he prophecied the doom of Jerusalum.
Let me explain this.
He prophecied the death and destruction of his own people at a time when they were in occupation.
THe idea that God chooses one nation over another because they are more righteous than another is just silly. How many times has God destroyed a nation because of genocide or brought an even worse nation to humble a more pious one? (Think Babylon and Israel)
The right has nothing to offer but fear and destruction. The left has nothing to offer but hope and blind faith. I am not sure which is worse but if I were to take a look at what the scriptures teach especially Hebrews, the Prophets, Pentatauch, and the Gospels I would say that faith and blind hope are better options.
Case in point my ethnic group (black folks) believed in freedom for themselves for hundreds of years before freedom came. It did not come w/ them taking over the nation it came in the form of Christian men and women white and black working together to create a powerful mainly peaceful revoltution.
THe modern American protestant Christianity has forgotten that. Heck I honestly believe that many never knew it.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | September 30, 2006 8:34 AM
d4p: Mr. Clinton accomplished none of those things. Besides, who is going to pay for universal health care? Who is going to pay for fixing Social Security? Mr. Clinton's budget surpluses was Mr. Gingrich's accomplishment, right? If Mr. Clinton cared so much for the little guy, then why did he do nothing when the economy was going into a dive in 2000? The downturn started in March 1999 and continued downward until it was termed a "recession" in 2001. I won't go into Rwanda, AIDS, Sudan, ect...Mr. Clinton was real good on talking about what he wanted to do, the problem was he just never got around to doing anything concrete. When is Mr. Bush going to get credit for his work on AIDS in Africa?>
Posted by: Arxland | September 30, 2006 8:42 AM
Payshun: How do you know the mind of God outside the word of God?>
Posted by: Arxland | September 30, 2006 8:44 AM
Payshun: The only way we can know God is by what he has revealed through the inspired writers of the Scriptures. The Old Testament has revealed how he dealt with the people during the Patriarchical(or Abrahamic) period and the Mosaic period. The New Testament reveals that He has spoken to us through His Son and the Apostles.>
Posted by: Arxland | September 30, 2006 8:50 AM
Well, I'm not here to defend Clinton, but Bush has something Clinton didn't (i.e. a House and Senate of controlled by his party). I don't really care about Clinton one way or another, but at the very least, he can admit mistakes, which is something Bush seems pathologically incapable of.>
Posted by: D4P | September 30, 2006 8:51 AM
Great question. Thru feeding a homeless family tonite during my lunch break. My father's spirit led a family to me w/ no prompting. That was outside of my the bible and it's limited history.
One can meet and does meet God as one chooses into deeper intimacy w/ the Holy Spirit. The bible is the gate and for parts of it deeper intimacy is seen ie the Prophets, Gospels and a few others. But by and large what one notices in the bible is the same man made destructive tendencies that are plaguing us now. That's not God.
In the old testament there were schools of the prophetic that taught people to use the law of moses and their own personal experience to love and redeem their people. By and large the personal experience stuff is fairly weak in the united states.
I learned that from reading the Christian mystics. They taught me that there is a depth of intimacy that people in the bible lived. They got their starts in the bible but learned that relationship had to be lived outside of rigorous bible study.
Extensive Bible study serves gnosticism, or knowledge while faith serves love and practice. One can see this most clearly in the persecuted church. Many don't have a full bible let alone a whole book but they live out what is in its pages radically. The bible was the starting place and blueprint for their faith but it did not end there. They had to let the HOly Spirit live it out thru them.
They (holy Spirit and people) had to live it out and apply it to their cultural systems, all the while letting the spirit create new people thru suffering. They are tortured, beaten, w/ broken legs, while their kids are being killed in front of them... all for the sake of the gospel. Yet some Christians here in the states feel like they are getting persecuted because of activist judges. That's sad.
We must choose into the harder path. We must choose into suffering but neither side is really ready for that. We have become a lazy people afraid that we will have to sacrifice those we love and the things we own (as if we really own anything anyway.)
The truth is we should be suffering by choosing into loving our enemy. We should be suffering by taking care of the poor and infirmed but no you folks on the right say no everyone has to work.
You folks on the left like to feel comfortable. God is not about comfort or making our lives easier as a matter of fact he promises hardship for those that are committed to following him. My goodness we have all forgotten that one.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | September 30, 2006 9:01 AM
No God reveals himself outside of the scriptures all the time. paul even alludes to this. Did Abraham have the scriptures to know God? Nope, Did Ezekiel rely solely on the law of moses to know God? Did any of the prophets rely on those things at the expense of their experience? The answer is no.
God told Isaiah to walk around naked for years, Ezekiel ate bread cooked over feces... The point is they started out w/ the revelation of the divine law but they chose to obey his radical commandment even when those things ie the law was not always readily available. The same thing is true for the new testament.
Did Paul have the total bilbe compiled to write what he wrote? Nope, did peter? Nope... The point is the Spirit reveals himself and doesn't need the bible to do that but he chooses to do it. So many can't read and yet they are given visions of the risen Christ and come to faith thru that.
What's so hard to understand about the infinite ways the spirit will use anything to point to salvation thru Jesus?
p>
Posted by: Payshun | September 30, 2006 9:06 AM
Payshun: I hope you don't mind but I am going to copy this for further study. This makes a whole lot of sense to me. Jesus said to "strive to enter the narrow way, because the broad way leads to destruction." I have always believed that we live in country that was prosperous beyond measure and that life was getting too easy. My grandmother just died a couple of years ago, she was born in 1898 and died in 2002. She said that we live a land of to much milk and honey and that we have become "fat and lazy" in the spirit and that the danger to our souls lies in the easy way of living that we have become accustomed too.>
Posted by: Arxland | September 30, 2006 9:16 AM
I am getting ready to sign off. My email address is arxland@hotmail.com. I would like to continue this conversation tomorrow or the next day when you have time. Thanks!>
Posted by: Arxland | September 30, 2006 9:18 AM
Their need to be a biblical clarification of a true Christian since this title is so loosely used these days by, Mormons, Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses, Conservatives, Liberals, Modernists, progressives, Masons, Shriners, New Age (Christ conscience), 7th Day Adventists, Sinners, you name it.
According to the Holy Scriptures there is only one voice that speaks the truth about Christianity, Jesus Christ the Messiah. All true followers (disciples) of Jesus speak the same thing he does. All other voices that proclaim to speak for Christianity are either another gospel, another Jesus, or another spirit. Jesus said in John 14:6, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If I may use the words of Adam Clarke commentary on this verse:
I am the Way - That leads so the Father: - the Truth that teaches the knowledge of God, and directs in the way: - the Life that animates all those who seek and serve him, and which is to be enjoyed eternally at the end of the way.
Christ is the Way:
1. By his doctrine, John_6:68.
2. By his example, Peter_2:21.
3. By his sacrifice, Heb_9:8, Heb_9:9.
4. By his Spirit, John_16:13.
He is the Truth:
1. In opposition to all false religions.
2. To the Mosaic law, which was only the shadow, not the truth or substance, of the good things which were to come. And
3. In respect to all the promises of God, 2Co_1:20.
He is the Life, both in grace and glory; the life that not only saves from death, but also destroys it. No man cometh unto the Father - By any other doctrine, by any other merit, or by any other intercession than mine.
Which brings me to my point and main comment: Who are "true Christians"? Many who are said to be Christians or call themselves Christians, or answer to the name of Christians are not truly Christians? Lets look to the Holy Scriptures for this most important answer for the Word of God has the answer to every question.
The Word of God says:
2Timothy 3:16-17: All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
2Peter 1:20-21: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
The first mention of Christian in the scriptures is found in Acts 11:26; and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
In the original Greek it is: Christianos; that is follower of Christ: a disciple (pupil).
In order to follow Jesus Christ in His Kingdom a person MUST be born-again. Jesus said except a man is born-again he cannot see the kingdom of God. Being born again is a supernatural act performed by the Spirit of God. This takes place when a person submits to the drawing of the Holy Spirit, repent (turn from sin) and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ confess it with there mouth believe it in their heart, begin to rely on, trust in and have faith in the Lord God from then on.
This born-again Christian now relies on the Holy Spirit to teach and guide him/her in all truth as they begin to renounce self-dependence, and selfish pursuits; they deny themselves for the Gospel sake. They actually imitate Christ, being transformed to his image in word and deeds. Jesus declared that those who do the will of His Father, which is in heaven, are His.
Mark 8:34: And when he had called the people unto Him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
Luke 9:23: And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
Luke 14:27: And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.
The truly born-again Christians follows Jesus who said: Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. We live by the laws of God kingdom not this earthly kingdom. We love our enemy even to our own detriment even death. We love our brothers (these are those who do the will of the Father); we love our neighbors (who ever they may be). We bless them which persecute us, we bless and curse not, we recompense to no man evil for evil, we provide things honest in the sight of all men, we avenge not ourselves, but rather give place unto wrath, if our enemy hunger we feed him; if he thirst we give him drink, we overcome evil with good. (Note: the above does not neglect the commands from scripture to reprove, rebuke and expose sin and wickedness all in love of truth for the saving of souls: Luke 17:3, 1 Timothy 5:20, 2 Timothy 4:2, Titus 1:13, and 2 Timothy 2:15).
True Christians look for a city, which hath foundations, whose builder, and maker is God. Now being fully persuaded to be a doer of the word of God by literally doing what Jesus said do.
There are many that confess to be Christians throughout history and even down to the present day that engaged in bloody wars of conquest, slavery, the Holocaust and cruel exploitation of the poor. The truth is they are not followers of the Jesus Christ of the Holy Scriptures. They are not true Christians they are hypocrites (pretenders) whom Jesus refers to in Matthew 7:21-23: Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works?
This earthly kingdom is not ours the same as it was not our Lord Jesus Christ when He walked this earth. Jesus utmost concerns were not political and economical issues during His ministry here on earth and shouldn't be ours either. His concern was His everlasting kingdom being established and manifested to his subjects now whereby we may by His grace and tender mercies serve Him here and forevermore. Our duty is to pray for those in authority of this earthly kingdom regardless of who they are: that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this [is] good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour. The Sovereign God gives kingdoms to even the abase of men for His Sovereign purpose. The Holy Scriptures declare that God is the origin of power, and the supreme Governor of the universe, he delegates authority to whomsoever he will; and though in many cases the governor himself may not be of God.
We that are "truly" born-again are to take up our cross daily fulfill the great commission. Preach the gospel in order that some men would repent, believe and be saved from an eternal hellfire. Be a doer of the WORDS of Jesus looking for and awaiting the new heaven and new earth. As we go forth we always keep in mind that the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us, which are saved, it is the power of God. We preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
Beware of those who claim to be Christians but follow another Jesus, another spirit, and another gospel as the Apostle Paul was referring to in 2 Corinthians11: 4.
By, William Taylor Sr.
Bondservant of the Lord Jesus Christ
www.actioncross.net>
Posted by: William Taylor Sr | September 30, 2006 2:14 PM
hmmm - Payshun. That's the first time I've ever heard Bible study equated with Gnosticism. Seems to me you're calling black white.>
Posted by: Gordon | September 30, 2006 2:55 PM
Thanks to Jim Wallis and Sojourners and the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim leaders who joined in the drafting of "Words, Not War, With Iran".
Thatks for this opportunity for bipartisanhip. May we "change the wind", together, left and right.
I think the paragraph relating the negotiations with Iran and resolution of Iraq is excellent: "U.S. negotiations with Iran could also help resolve the crisis in Iraq. The U.S. should seek Iran s support for international efforts to rebuild and stabilize Iraq, in conjunction with an orderly withdrawal of U.S. troops, the removal of foreign military bases, and the renouncing of any proprietary American claims on Iraqi oil and reconstruction contracts."
May persons in the US who saw the error in the decision to invade Iraq right from the outset and who have the confidence of US citizens find ways to support this inter-faith appeal.
I wish that Colin Powell were still part of the US government, or that he would decide to offer his services again... left and right would have confidence in him.
Keep up the good work!>
Posted by: Michael Hayes | September 30, 2006 4:03 PM
Justintime:
Hamas and Al Fatah oppose Israel's occupation and the injustices inflicted on the Palestinian people.
They oppose Israel's existence. As soon as Israel pulled out of Gaza, Hamas started launching rockets.
Al Qaeda opposes the feudalistic Saud regime in Saudi Arabia.
Yeah, they'd prefer a Taliban. Some liberators!
Hezbollah opposed Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon and succeeded in driving Israel out of outhern Lebanon.
Their success has inspired them to attack Israel directly, which is considered a foreign occupation as well.
You think Hezbollah cares about the Palestinians? Their original enemy was the PLO, not Israel.
It's important to understand that terrorism is inspired by foreign occupation of Islamic countries and the resultant social injustice.
This is the key to defeating terrorism.
Check out:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011008/hitchens20010924
Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, is not a madman.
Nah, he just denies the holocaust and wants to purge the Middle East of Jews and other infidels.>
Posted by: HuckFinn | September 30, 2006 4:49 PM
D4P wrote:
My point is not that "The president of the US should govern according to Christian principles." My point is that "If the president is going to claim to be a Christian and claim to be doing the will of God, then s/he should govern according to Christian principles."
So I take it that "warmongering", as you put it, is perfectly okay as long as the President doesn't claim Biblical support?
Okay, so all we gotta do is get ourselves an atheist and have him just bomb the crap out of anyone who looks at us funny. Problem solved.
Wolverine>
Posted by: Wolverine | September 30, 2006 5:09 PM
I think that Payshun was referring to Gnosis (Greek for "Knowledge) rather than Gnosticism.>
Posted by: Wolverine | September 30, 2006 5:16 PM
So I take it that "warmongering", as you put it, is perfectly okay as long as the President doesn't claim Biblical support?
Would it be great if a non-Christian president would govern according to Christian principles? Sure, but I wouldn't expect it. As we've seen, it's hard enough for a "Christian" president to do so...>
Posted by: D4P | September 30, 2006 5:52 PM
Good morning Huck,
Yes, public statements from leaders of terrorist organizations and even some leaders of Middle Eastern nations tend to be just a bit overblown and emotional.
At times they have all said they oppose Israel's existence.
But this is the rhetoric of a vastly overwhelmed and abused culture.
This rhetoric doesn't mean they wouldn't accept a fairly negotiated peace settlement.
Ordinary Palestinians are tired of war and injustice.
Their great misfortune has been their corrupt leadership.
I'm thinking of Arafat.
George Marshall, for whom the WWII reconstruction plan was named, warned the Western powers that carving out a Jewish homeland in Palestine would prove to be a great mistake.
He said, " Why should we make enemies in the Middle East?."
Marshall pushed for a homeland for European survivors of the holocaust in Eastern Europe.
He lost on this but he was right, I think.
There has been so much eye for eye, tooth for tooth, oppression and bad faith negotiation over the Palestinian problem that Israel and the Palestinian leadership will never be able to resolve their differences between themselves.
They will need the intervention and honest brokerage from the outside world to achieve peace.
The road to Peace on Earth goes right through Jerusalem.
And in my opinion, at this time, the biggest obstacles are the Bush administration and the Israel lobby.
I read the Christopher Hitchens piece in the Nation that you recommended.
It's dated September 4, 2001, so it's a bit old and full of opinions that I think Hitchens himself would not agree with now, in light of recent developments.
Hitchen's main points in this rather disjointed essay are that Islamic terrorists are really really bad and that the bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant was a Clinton "wag the dog" operationNo one would disagree with his first point but his "wag the dog" claim has been thoroughly discredited by Richard Clarke in his book "Against All Enemies".
I consider Clarke the most reliable source when it comes to the history of America's responses to terrorism, since he's an intelligence professional who was actually inside the White House during the Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2 administrations.
Certainly Clarke is more reliable than Hitchens on terrorism.
Although Hitchens is a clever wordsmith and a bit of a gadfly, his alcoholism impairs his judgement when it comes to world politics.
I read Hitchens' The Trial of Henry Kissinger, in which he accuses Kissinger of war crimes in Indonesia. Interesting book and worth a read.
On the subject of Jewish - Muslim relations, did you know that Islam's tolerance of Jews over the centuries was far more consistent than Christendom's.
The establishment of the Jewish state in Palestine marks the beginning of the present intractible hostilities.
Even in Saddam's Iraq, Jewish communities were tolerated.
Not any more.
.>
Posted by: justintime | September 30, 2006 6:41 PM
Justintime:
Yes, public statements from leaders of terrorist organizations and even some leaders of Middle Eastern nations tend to be just a bit overblown and emotional.
At times they have all said they oppose Israel's existence.
But this is the rhetoric of a vastly overwhelmed and abused culture.
This rhetoric doesn't mean they wouldn't accept a fairly negotiated peace settlement.
Ordinary Palestinians are tired of war and injustice.
Their great misfortune has been their corrupt leadership.
I'm thinking of Arafat.
Their actions (indiscriminate suicide bombings, rocket attacks, etc.) have been very consistent with their rhetoric. Most recently, Hamas has refused to join a coalition government that renounces terror and recognizes Israel.
Of course, all this has nothing to do with Iran, which couldn't care less about the Palestinians.
Hitchen's main points in this rather disjointed essay are that Islamic terrorists are really really bad
Would you agree that their stated ends are as wicked as their means?
I read Hitchens' The Trial of Henry Kissinger, in which he accuses Kissinger of war crimes in Indonesia. Interesting book and worth a read.
Not just Indonesia, but Indochina and Cypress as well.
On the subject of Jewish - Muslim relations, did you know that Islam's tolerance of Jews over the centuries was far more consistent than Christendom's.
Wouldn't you say the situation has reversed in recent centuries?
The establishment of the Jewish state in Palestine marks the beginning of the present intractible hostilities.
Should Israel be eradicated?
Even in Saddam's Iraq, Jewish communities were tolerated.
As you've noted, Saddam was no Islamic purist.>
Posted by: Anonymous | September 30, 2006 7:34 PM
Below is a column I wrote for my local paper.It pertains directly to this issue.
Thanks to Seymour Hersch we have been warned about the campaign to attack Iran. With uncanny parrallels to the Iraq invasion, we have been hearing a lot of reasons why we should be terrified by the idea of a nuclear Iran. Perhaps if we were leading the way toward international nuclear disarmament, and if we had not compared Iran to Fascist Japan, we would have a credible voice. While fully aware of the dangerous ideas voiced by some Iranian leaders, there are many, including many Military leaders and foreign policy leaders who think the military options are the worst possible approach to the discord between Iran and the U.S.
Many Americans don t understand why there is so much anger between the U.S. and Iran. One reason our citizens don t understand is the failure of American media to provide a full honest history of our dealings there, which begins most dramatically after WW2 The Iranian people were energized by national pride and democratic ideas and wanted to use their electoral power to get greater social justice. They elected Mossadegh, a respected reformer who promised to nationalize the country s oil. He was jailed in a CIA engineered coup and replaced by an expatriate monarch, the Shah, who brutally repressed, jailed, killed and tortured the dissident remnants of the pro democracy movement and set up sweetheart oil deals with U.S. Oil companies. This created a divided attitude toward America in Iran, those benefitting from the Shah s regime and American business, and those who saw the better side of our culture liked us. But a far greater number, especially those who suffered under the Shah and those who saw their own national identity and aspirations made to serve America s appetite for cheap oil and subservient leaders came to despise our polices and even our culture and people.
Religious leaders of a jihadist bent were able to mobilize a revolution against the Shah. Considering what they endured, their anti-americanism was mostly symbolic flag-burning etc., while the actual treatment of the famous hostages was mild, particularly compared with our treatment of captives in Abhu Graibh or Guantanamo. In the end they negotiated. Unfortunately, the religious leaders themselves became harsh oppressors, and while keeping a semblance of democratic process have held onto power far beyond any continuing popular mandate. So far American violence and intervention in the region has only enhanced the cleric s power. But Iran has a cultural heritage as rich and diverse as has ever existed . The Iranian people are already chafing for an open society, and with time, negotiation and stability it will find its ancient Persian roots, escape the control of the fundamentalists, and flourish. Instead of pursuing the neo-cons crazy idea of democracy through aerial bombardment, let s talk to them.
I first became interested in medieval Persian culture when I made some stained glass windows for a charming and generous Iranian family in California. I followed the interest over the years and last year I found a painting by Bezhad, the greatest Iranian miniaturist. A painting which continues to touch my deepest hopes. It is a painting of men working on an earthen building with ladders, mud bricks, ropes and ingenuity. But the greatest ingredient is friendship. There are African men, pale round faced orientals, brown skinned bearded Arabs, strong redheads with fair skin and at least one of such delicate features and form that it may be a young woman disguised in their midst. All are working hard , but the atmosphere is comradely, respectful. There are all the faces of humanity here and on them both sweat and smiles. This, my friends, is the only possible future for a nuclear world. It is time to learn that.
Joseph T , Vermont
I would like to add some information to the article above and to this debate. Right now under current law the Iranians are doing nothing wrong as regards nuclear power. They have signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty which allows them to develop nuclear power.So far no signatories to this treaty have illicitly built nuclear weapons. There is no credible evidence that they are trying to build weapons. Their leading clerics, who hold far more power the president oppose neclear weapons and consider them innately sinful. The anti-semitic rhetoric of the president is foolish and dangerous but it is not all that different from America's anti-Islamic rhetoric or the Christian Right's denial of the ugly aspects of American history or European protestant colonial mass killing.We all have along way to go toward interfaith and intercultural dialogue, and joining the fear mongering surrounding Iran is not helping . The comparisons to the appeasement of Germany are not appropriate. Germany had invaded Chekoslovakia. Iran has done nothing of the kind. I am not saying there is no repression or violence there, but we are in no moral position to judge them considering our own history and current international defiance of the U.N. charter and Geneva Conventions, the breaking of our own arms treaties , and unlawful arrest and detention of thousands without legal proceedings. Joseph>
Posted by: Joseph | September 30, 2006 7:43 PM
Where do "negotiations" leave us then. And if they fail, and Iran develops a nuclear bomb, what do we do? Let them use it?
kevin s. |
Several countries have developed nuclear weapons and only one has used them. The United States of America. Israel has developed a large nuclear arsenal in defiance of international law, and has shown little restraint in attacking civilian populations.Would you apply your reasoning to Israel? Iran is not a suicidal or even historically a particularly warlike culture. They have not attacked anyone for something like 200 years. Your fears are not founded on facts and are a poor basis for promoting massive violence.>
Posted by: Joseph | September 30, 2006 8:04 PM
Joseph,
Unlike Iraq, Iran has proven and long standing ties to international terrorist groups. It's also much more of a hotbed of Islamic extremism. There's a reason that even "doves" such as Wallis believe that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable.
Having said that, let me state that I think a "pre-emptive" strike on Iran anytime soon would be disatrous. We should first exhaust all diplomatic efforts, starting with a pledge to forego "regime change" in Iran if it complies with IAEA demands.>
Posted by: HuckFinn | September 30, 2006 8:23 PM
Unlike Iraq, Iran has proven and long standing ties to international terrorist groups. HuckFinn
HuckFinn'
America also has proven ties to international terrorism, we provided weapons to Iraq under Saddam in their war of aggresion against Iran. We funded the Sandinistas in their violence against the citizens of an elected government, we aided a coup aginst the elected president of Chile and supported the dictator who came to power as he murdered tens of thousands of Chileans. A pledge to forgo regime change is not diplomacy; it is a threat of mass violence. What is your evidence Iran is developing nuclear weapons? I fully support Jim's efforts to promote Words not War. This idea is cntral to Jesus message. I oppose all nuclear weapons. They should all be disarmed and dismantled.
I believe the heart of what Jesus brought to humanity is an example of how to confront religious and political fearmongering with nonviolence, sharing community, and the liberating power of fearless love. He taught his followers to see God as loving Father, he taught that happiness was to be found in peacemaking, mercy, the pursuit of justice, giving, that prayer was to be personal and humble. He taught them to put down the sword and take up the message of good news for all.
When I was young, and a new believer, the Christian fundamentalist community was ready to go to war with Russia, and Communism was the great Satanic stronghold and all prophecies pointed to an apocalyptic battle between The U.S.(an entity which is very hard to locate in the Bible)and Israel on one hand and Russia (Magog , Gog , I dont' remember) on the other. Now it is Islam or terrorism, or Gay people which are the objects of holy war. I no longer accept the idea that Jesus was a messenger of apocalyse. I believe he was a messeger of spiritual transformation through fearless love.
For those of you who claim to believe the Bible and wait for the apocalyptic end of the world and the literal return of Christ, why in the world would you need armies and nuclear weapons and spies and torture if God almighty is your defender and the source of your power and freedom?>
Posted by: Anonymous | September 30, 2006 9:47 PM
why in the world would you need armies and nuclear weapons and spies and torture if God almighty is your defender and the source of your power and freedom?
Because they ultimately don't trust God to protect them, and feel like they must take protection into their own hands.>
Posted by: D4P | September 30, 2006 10:01 PM
Huck says,
1. Of course, all this has nothing to do with Iran, which couldn't care less about the Palestinians.
2. Would you agree that their stated ends are as wicked as their means?
3. Should Israel be eradicated?
4. Having said that, let me state that I think a "pre-emptive" strike on Iran anytime soon would be disatrous. We should first exhaust all diplomatic efforts, starting with a pledge to forego "regime change" in Iran if it complies with IAEA demands.
1. I think Iran does care about Palestine.
2. Terrorists have driven themselves insane with religious hatred and are really really bad and extremely dangerous too.
3. Are you kidding me, Huck?
4. So Huck, did you sign the Words Not War petition?
.>
Posted by: justintime | September 30, 2006 10:22 PM
Joseph, I like your piece on Iran.
And Thom Hartmann is my favorite progressive talker.
Will Bernie Sanders win a Senate seat?
.>
Posted by: justintime | September 30, 2006 10:33 PM
Joseph said:
"Many Americans don t understand why there is so much anger between the U.S. and Iran. One reason our citizens don t understand is the failure of American media to provide a full honest history of our dealings there, which begins most dramatically after WW2 The Iranian people were energized by national pride and democratic ideas and wanted to use their electoral power to get greater social justice. They elected Mossadegh, a respected reformer who promised to nationalize the country s oil. He was jailed in a CIA engineered coup and replaced by an expatriate monarch, the Shah, who brutally repressed, jailed, killed and tortured the dissident remnants of the pro democracy movement and set up sweetheart oil deals with U.S. Oil companies. This created a divided attitude toward America in Iran, those benefitting from the Shah s regime and American business, and those who saw the better side of our culture liked us. But a far greater number, especially those who suffered under the Shah and those who saw their own national identity and aspirations made to serve America s appetite for cheap oil and subservient leaders came to despise our polices and even our culture and people."
Joseph, I admit I'm not familiar with this. Do you have a reference for this aspect of US involvement in Iran?
Thanks, Mike>
Posted by: Michael Hayes | October 1, 2006 1:57 AM
No I am saying that studying the bible to gain merely knowledge is gnostic. The bible (being a part of the divine word aka Jesus) should be a book that connects you w/ the holy spirit not merely something you quote to win an argument or appear like you or anyone has knowledge.
We weaken our relationship w/ Jesus when we think we actually know something. It's like we equate knowing w/ faith and they are not the same thing at all. The current problem w/ how bible study is pitched depends largely on the mind. It ultimately reinforces this western division between the head and heart.
If you study the people in the bible they did not have that division instead they were whole, heart, mind body and soul. We have much to learn if we have any hope of bringing the bible back to life again.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | October 1, 2006 2:55 AM
Mike, check out Karen Armstrong's excellent book, The Battle for God.
She has a few chapters on Iran's early experiences with America, up to about 2000.
Armstrong covers the period Joseph wrote about.
The book has footnotes and reliable references, if you want to dig deeper into this sorry chapter in America's history.
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 1, 2006 3:01 AM
Payshun says,
It's like we equate knowing w/ faith and they are not the same thing at all.
The Greeks would say logos and mythos, right?
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 1, 2006 3:05 AM
Justintime,
Thanks for the information about "The Battle for God" by Karen Armstrong.
Judith Miller did make a very brief mention of the 1953 intervention by the CIA in the chapter about Iran in "God Has Ninety nine Names".>
Posted by: Michael Hayes | October 1, 2006 4:45 AM
Mike Hayes
Thank you for asking. The story of the 1953 CIA coup against Mohammed Mossadegh has been publicly alleged for several decades by ex CIA people and progressive historians but as far as I know it was fully documented through freedom of information act CIA documents recently. on aprl 16 2000 the New York Times pubished the official history with CIA docments with some names deleted. Times correspondent Stephen Kinzer wrote a book about it called All the Shah's Men. I have heard him and others give oral accounts of his findings. A more recent book is Mohammad Mosaddeq and
the 1953 Coup in Iran
Edited by Mark J. Gasiorowski and Malcolm Byrne ( American university historians)
Searches under "Mossadegh" or Iran History , or Iran Coup should turn up more leads for confirmation.
The basic facts that I described are based on well established and broadly accepted historical research.What is fundamental in what I am saying is that we have gotten a very one-sided view of Iran from a media which seems to consider it unprofitable and unpatriotic to look into the darker side of U.S. history. We must be accountable to our own ideals.>
Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2006 6:00 AM
Sorry that last anonymous addressed to Mike Hayes was Myself. I am used to a format that automatically signs my name.
Joseph>
Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2006 6:02 AM
Jpseph and Justintime,
I think a very high percentage of citizens value accurate information, and thanks for that.
I also think a relevant consideration is the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, and the follow-up "report card" that identifies some failures by the congress and the administration.
To me, the failure to fund the secular schools to diminish the effect of the Madrassas on the poor youth of the countries in which the Madrassas function so freely is significant.
I would guess that the hatred of the west that is being taught there is in part attributable to the resentment of western efforts over decades to prop up governments in the region, including the instance you mention in Iran.
And hatred of the west is probably fueled by the shortcomings of foreign policy over several administrations which have produced resentment among Muslim countries that the west and the US in particular is sympathetic to interests of Israel, to the detriment of Palestine and other Muslim areas in the Middle East.
Funding the International Youth Opportunity Fund would be one way to "attack terrorism at its roots", in addition to the extensive and costly efforts to improve the safety of our transportation and shipping systems.
There also were recommendations for foreign policy changes that have not yet been followed.
The fault lies with the congress and the administration, and we all could make some effort to periodically follow up to our representatives in congress to urge their consideration of those incomplete tasks.
I think bipartisanship by our elected representatives encourages all of us to have greater confidence in what our government is doing. I know I was greatly encouraged by the work product of the 9/11 commission and the follow-up report "Withour Precedent" in which the co-comissioners described how successful all the comissioners had been in sticking to the facts and in reaching consensus.
It was not easy.
Thanks again for the source information.>
Posted by: Michael Hayes | October 1, 2006 3:17 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax is a link to a concise summary of the 1953 CIA operation in Iran known as Operation Ajax.
This Wikipedia article (yes, anyone and everyone can alter the content) also mentions that:
"Operation Ajax was the first time the Central Intelligence Agency was involved in a plot to overthrow a democratically-elected government. The success of this operation, and its relatively low cost, encouraged the CIA to successfully carry out a similar operation in Guatemala a year later.">
Posted by: Mike Hayes | October 1, 2006 7:11 PM
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks for himself
Posted Sunday, Sep. 17, 2006
TIME: What were your impressions of New York during your visit to the U.S. last year?
Ahmadinejad: Unfortunately we didn't have any contact with the people of the United States. We were not in touch with the people. But my general impression is that the people of the United States are good people. Everywhere in the world, people are good.
TIME: Did you visit the site of the World Trade Center?
Ahmadinejad: It was not necessary. It was widely covered in the media.
TIME: You recently invited President Bush to a televised debate. If he were sitting where I am sitting, what would you say, man to man?
Ahmadinejad: The issues which are of interest to us are the international issues and how to manage them. I gave some recommendations to President Bush in my personal letter, and I hope that he will take note of them. I would ask him, Are rationalism, spirituality and humanitarianism and logic - are they bad things for human beings? Why more conflict? Why should we go for hostilities? Why should we develop weapons of mass destruction? Everybody can love one another.
TIME: Do you feel any connection with President Bush, since he is also a religious man, a strong Christian?
Ahmadinejad: I've heard about that. But there are many things which take place and are inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ in this world.
TIME: Why do your supporters chant "Death to America"?
Ahmadinejad: When they chanted that slogan, it means they hate aggression, and they hate bullying tactics, and they hate violations of the rights of nations and discrimination. I recommended to President Bush that he can change his behavior, then everything will change.
TIME: How do you think the American people feel when they hear Iranians shouting "Death to America" and the President of Iran does not criticize this?
Ahmadinejad: The nations do not have any problems. What is the role of the American people in what is happening in the world? The people of the United States are also seeking peace, love, friendship and justice.
TIME: But if Americans shouted "Death to Iran," Iranians would feel insulted.
Ahmadinejad: If the government of Iran acted in such a way, then [the American people] have this right.
TIME: Are America and Iran fated to be in conflict?
Ahmadinejad: No, this is not fate. And this can come to an end. I have said we can run the world through logic. We are living our own lives. The U.S. government should not interfere in our affairs. They should live their own lives. They should serve the interests of the U.S. people. They should not interfere in our affairs. Then there would be no problems with that.
TIME: Are you ready to open direct negotiations with the U.S.?
Ahmadinejad: We have given them a letter, a lengthy letter. We say the U.S. Administration should change its behavior, and then everything will be solved. It was the U.S. which broke up relations with us. We didn't take that position. And then they should make up for it.
TIME: Does Iran have the right to nuclear weapons?
Ahmadinejad: We are opposed to nuclear weapons. We think it has been developed just to kill human beings. It is not in the service of human beings. For that reason, last year in my address to the U.N. General Assembly, I suggested that a committee should be set up in order to disarm all the countries that possess nuclear weapons.
continued in the next post...
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 1, 2006 7:25 PM
Ahmadinejad speaks for himself, continued
TIME: But you were attacked with weapons of mass destruction by Iraq. You say the u.s. threatens you, and you are surrounded by countries that have nuclear weapons.
Ahmadinejad: Today nuclear weapons are a blunt instrument. We don't have any problems with Pakistan or India. Actually they are friends of Iran, and throughout history they have been friends. The Zionist regime is not capable of using nuclear weapons. Problems cannot be solved through bombs. Bombs are of little use today. We need logic.
TIME: Why won't you agree to suspend enrichment of uranium as a confidence-building measure?
Ahmadinejad: Whose confidence should be built?
TIME: The world's?
Ahmadinejad: The world? The world? Who is the world? The United States? The U.S. Administration is not the entire world. Europe does not account for one-twentieth of the entire world. When I studied the provisions of the npt [Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty], nowhere did I see it written that in order to produce nuclear fuel, we need to win the support or the confidence of the United States and some European countries.
TIME: How far will Iran go in defying Western demands? Will you wait until you are attacked and your nuclear installations are destroyed?
Ahmadinejad: Do you think the u.s. administration would be so irrational?
TIME: You tell me.
Ahmadinejad: I hope that is not the case. I said that we need logic. We do not need attacks.
TIME: Are you worried about an attack?
Ahmadinejad: No.
TIME: You have been quoted as saying Israel should be wiped off the map. Was that merely rhetoric, or do you mean it?
Ahmadinejad: People in the world are free to think the way they wish. We do not insist they should change their views. Our position toward the Palestinian question is clear: we say that a nation has been displaced from its own land. Palestinian people are killed in their own lands, by those who are not original inhabitants, and they have come from far areas of the world and have occupied those homes. Our suggestion is that the 5 million Palestinian refugees come back to their homes, and then the entire people on those lands hold a referendum and choose their own system of government. This is a democratic and popular way. Do you have any other suggestions?
TIME: Do you believe the Jewish people have a right to their own state?
Ahmadinejad: We do not oppose it. In any country in which the people are ready to vote for the Jews to come to power, it is up to them. In our country, the Jews are living and they are represented in our Parliament. But Zionists are different from Jews.
TIME: Have you considered that Iranian Jews are hurt by your comments denying that 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust?
Ahmadinejad: As to the Holocaust, I just raised a few questions. And I didn't receive any answers to my questions. I said that during World War II, around 60 million were killed. All were human beings and had their own dignities. Why only 6 million? And if it had happened, then it is a historical event. Then why do they not allow independent research?
TIME: But massive research has been done.
Ahmadinejad: They put in prison those who try to do research. About historical events everybody should be free to conduct research. Let's assume that it has taken place. Where did it take place? So what is the fault of the Palestinian people? These questions are quite clear. We are waiting for answers.
Do these words sound like a madman speaking?
Do you really think Iranian President Ahmadinejad is a madman?
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 1, 2006 7:29 PM
People like Ahmadinejad are dismissed as "madmen" so that we don't have to actually evaluate his words on their merits. Among other things, this helps us avoid the embarrassing and unsettling truth that he and others like him are actually rational human beings who are more intelligent than many of our own leaders and who have a better grasp of world events than we do.
Even the leader of Iran can see that the inconsistencies between Bush's actions and the teachings of Christ.>
Posted by: D4P | October 1, 2006 8:26 PM
Muslims know more about Christ than we know about the prophet Muhammad.
Christ is in the Koran.
Bush has three of the planet's religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islam - engaged in his so called "War on Terror".
Judaism, Christianity and Islam are branches of the same tree.
Both Christianity and Islam build on the root of Judaism.
The Jewish holy books don't mention Christianity or Islam.
The Christian Bible contains the Jewish books of the Old Testament but doesn't mention Islam.
And the newest, Islam, recognizes both Judaism and Christianity in its teachings.
Scholars can follow the root of Judaism even further back in time to the ancient religion of Persia - Zoroastrianism.
Can you set aside theological disputes and the history of mankind's political follies on the planet and see that we all worship the same God?
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 1, 2006 9:37 PM
So Ahmadinajab has an interview with Time, and obfuscates his earlier strident threats of violence against Israel and his earlier denial of the Holocaust, and pretends to be some sort of statesman. Why should we believe him? Or should we believe his earlier pronouncements, which I would characterize as insane rantings?
I am familiar with the sordid history of the CIA-sponsored ovethrow of the Iranian government in the 50s. But I don't think it explains or justifies Iran's current outlook on the U.S. and the world.>
Posted by: Gordon | October 1, 2006 9:54 PM
Gordon,
It's Ahmadinejad, not Ahmadinajab.
Your little Freudian slip on purpose shows you tuned out of Ahmadinejad's message without thinking much about it.
Do you have any actual quotes of "earlier strident threats of violence against Israel"?
We'll compare them.
Do you think he could've been protesting Israel's disproportionate destruction of Lebanon over 2 captured Israeli soldiers?
I was really outraged over Israel's destruction of Lebanon.
Here's the part of the interview I didn't like:
TIME: Have you considered that Iranian Jews are hurt by your comments denying that 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust?
Ahmadinejad: As to the Holocaust, I just raised a few questions. And I didn't receive any answers to my questions. I said that during World War II, around 60 million were killed. All were human beings and had their own dignities. Why only 6 million? And if it had happened, then it is a historical event. Then why do they not allow independent research?
TIME: But massive research has been done.
Ahmadinejad: They put in prison those who try to do research. About historical events everybody should be free to conduct research. Let's assume that it has taken place. Where did it take place? So what is the fault of the Palestinian people? These questions are quite clear. We are waiting for answers.
What's that all about?
Sounds like he needs to do some research and find out the truth about the holocaust.
No one has been put in prison for researching the holocaust, to my knowledge.
Like you, I'm puzzled about his apparent denial of the holocaust, but he's not alone, this is a viscious lie circulated worldwide by haters of Jews.
Even American citizens deny the holocaust.
Gordon says,
I am familiar with the sordid history of the CIA-sponsored ovethrow of the Iranian government in the 50s. But I don't think it explains or justifies Iran's current outlook on the U.S. and the world.
I disagree with you here, Gordon.
Considering the history of Iran's relationship with America, I think Iran has every right to view America and our foothold in the Middle East, Israel, with suspicion.
Gordon, are you afraid of Iran?
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 1, 2006 11:04 PM
Ahmadinejad speaks for himself:
"Very soon, this stain of disgrace (Israel) will vanish from the center of the Islamic world - and this is attainable."
More
"This means defeat, and he who accepts the existence of this regime in fact signs the defeat of the Islamic world."
For the record, Sojourner's is not a pacifist organization (or claims not to be). This is why I asked the question of what we should do if faced with the possibility of an Iranian.
If Sojourner's answer is "well, we should let them have it, and do what they please with it because we dropped an atomic bomb on Japan in WW2." Then that is hardly a moderate message that is going to unite the right and left.
However, Sojo seems to think that Iran having nukes is a bad idea. So, given that it is a bad idea, what do we do if negotiations fail? If we do not back up our negotiations with military action, then how do we deal with these threats in the future?
If the answer is consistently "let them have their bombs because military action is bad." I'm afraid the pacifist label applies. If that is not the answer, I would love an explanation of when military action would be appropriate (from those who support the Sojo movement).>
Posted by: kevin s. | October 1, 2006 11:44 PM
President Bush discusses terrorism
in a speech on September 6, 2006 at the Capital Hilton Hotel.
It starts out like this:
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. (Applause.) Thank you all. Please be seated. General Hendrix, thank you for the invitation to be here. Thanks for the kind introduction. I'm honored to stand with the men and women of the Military Officers Association of America. I appreciate the Board of Directors who are here, and the leaders who have given me this platform from which to speak. I'm proud to be here with active members of the United States military. Thank you for your service. I'm proud to be your Commander-in-Chief. (Applause.)
The reader's digest version, with the unimportant parts edited out for clarity and conciseness, continues as follows:
al Qaeda...terrorist allies...September the 11th, 2001...global y...Illinois ...terrorists and their supporters...al Qaeda...weapons of mass destruction . . . terrorists...dangerous nuclear trading cartel...Iran...Libya...North Korea ...nuclear weapons...terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction...terrorists...September the 11th...terror...terror...September the 11th, 2001...Afghanistan and Iraq...terrorist states...war on terror...weapons of mass destruction...nuclear materials...terrorist state