The little warmongers

Fred
by Fred
26-Jul-2010
 

Once again talk of sane world going to war with IRR, the Islamist Rapist Republic can be heard in the background. And once again the usual suspects are against it.

Don’t take me wrong, if not the most, war is one of the most repugnant of crimes human beings commit which except in rare instances is preventable.

But aside the prevention needing cooperation from both sides, it needs just condemnation of underlying causation by all anti-war activists, condemning the cause as well as the effect. In the case of IRR that has not been the case.

In other words the anti-war activists, mostly of Islamists/Anti-Semites and their likeminded lefty lap poodles variety have been quick in condemning the sane world, the effect, and have had virtually nothing to say to IRR’s causation.

The triumvirate has seized upon the case not to prevent war rather to use it as just another arrow in its quiver to shoot at its nemeses.

Should a war be imposed on Iran and Iranians by the Islamist Rapists, as facilitators the triumvirate and the twin lobbies NIAC/CASMII have their own share of responsibility for it

Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by FredCommentsDate
ادا اطوار اسلامی
5
Dec 05, 2012
مسجد همجنسگرایان
1
Dec 05, 2012
Iranians are legitimate target
10
Dec 04, 2012
more from Fred
 
LoverOfLiberty

Fooladi,

by LoverOfLiberty on

I guess in your mind it is rather convenient to point to NATO and the Cold War as the reason why the Iranian revolutionary history turned out as it did, while turning an apparently blind eye away from the observation that many people in Iran bought into Khomeini's lies and put so much blind faith into said person's character to lead Iran.

In my opinion, the Iranian Revolution turned out as it did because people in Iran did not do enough to prevent it from occuring as it did.

So, don't go and blame some convenient bogeyman when the blame rests squarely on the Iranian population's own shoulders.


fooladi

"When are going to take matters in your own hands?"

by fooladi on

Asks love of liberty:

We have honestly tried "taking matters in our own hands" on many occasions. The latest attempt was made in 1979, when we had this thing called "Revolution". Alas, this revolution did not fit in the over all Nato Strategy of cheap oil and keeping communists' hands off it. So we ended up with what we have today, the islamist regime and hundreds of secret mass burial locations scattered all over Iran of the original revolutionaries...


LoverOfLiberty

Marjaneh,

by LoverOfLiberty on

But, the Mill quote I cited on this thread was not about capital punishment.  Instead, the Mill quote I cited-which was part of a larger essay-was an effort he made in 1862 to try to galvanize support in the north for the Union's effort during the American Civil War. 

Perhaps you were thinking of another essay or quote by Mill?

(I think it is this speech by Mill that you were thinking of:

http://www.tep-online.info/laku/usa/dp/mill.htm)

And personally, I am, in general, against capital punishment.  But, if it were to occur, I think it should be reserved for the most horrible crimes, such as serial killing and such.

And, if you follow American politics, capital punishment is today a contentious issue in the US...and something which could be abolished in the US in the future.


LoverOfLiberty

Fred,

by LoverOfLiberty on

If you ask me, I think the US and the West, in general, have been making a mistake-and the Iranian people have been suffering from that mistake-by trying to placate the Iranian regime in order to get better terms with the regime at the negotiating table.

In my mind, it is the equivalent of letting Nazi Germany have the Sudetenland with the notion that, once they have the Sudetenland, all of the (supposed) greviances of Nazi Germany will miraculously be settled.  But, history tells a different story, of course.

My question to Iranians is thus, "When are going to take matters in your own hands?"  After all, it isn't the reasonable person who makes change.  It is the unreasonable person who makes change.  And, if they think a Gandhi-like approach will work against the Iranian regime, then don't be too surprised if it is an outside force who takes out the regime since the rest of the world does not have an unlimited amount of patience.


Marjaneh

LoverOfLoverty. "Huh?"

by Marjaneh on

I wasn't suggesting that US should go into competition with Iran on executions and I wasn't suggesting anything about the "global moral police". I was genuinely and sincerely asking how "Life , Liberty" can be "reconciled" with Capital Punishment, (which is why I deliberately posted an extra post to you and had stated that my post was off topic. Somehow I thought, that someone with the username of LoverOfLiberty and quoting Mill, might have a clue.) .

So far, I'm not convinced it can. Pushing "moral relativism" (I use the term loosely)as you have that far, isn't an argument of justification.

 

As for Mill's FAMOUS argument FOR Capital Punishment, his argument was basically, that  because encarceration in prison conditions in the 19thC were so horrific, out of benign considerations, the prisoners should be executed instead of the long torture of life-long imprisonment. Since prison conditions have since improved, his argument is no longer valid, if indeed it was at the time.

I think, judging by your last post especially,  you had better read J.S. Mill, thoroughly!

 

As for tea, I'm with Ali G, on this one. It depends on the leaves.

 

"...society celebrates its live conformists and its dead troublemakers..." - Mignon McLaughlin



LoverOfLiberty

Marjaneh,

by LoverOfLiberty on

While it is true that the US practices capital punishment today, that practice has been fully abolished by the UK, including her overseas territories, as of 2002...and I believe the last execution to take place in the UK mainland took place around 44 years ago, in 1964.

This being said, however, the number of executions in the US today, and the reasons behind the executions in the US today, are significantly different than the situation in Iran.  For instance, in the US there where 52 executions in the US in 2009, yet there hasn't been a single non-homicide-related execution in the US since 1964.  On the other hand, Iran executed at least 388 people in 2009 alone, with some of those people being executed for crimes not even remotely associated with homicide, such as drug dealing, adultery, and homosexuality.

Although it could be argued that it would be hypocritical for the US to condemn Iran, in general, for practicing capital punishment since capital punishment exists in the US, it wouldn't be hypocritical if the US condemns Iran for acts of capital punishment whereby said acts are taken against people who were not convicted of a homicide-related crime.

But I guess that, to you, countries must have spotless records in order for them to condemn Iran for her actions?

On another topic, if you could, please tell me exactly why you think, "Mills' argument doesn't apply in this century?"  Has tyranny suddenly ended in this century?  Have adversaries suddenly decided to work out all of their differences in a non-war-like manner in this century?

If you ask me, I think you are deluding yourself by assuming that all issues between two or more states-or within states-can somehow be settled by...well...a chat between themselves over a hot cup of tea.


Marjaneh

"Mien Führer

by Marjaneh on

You are too green, do not skip class."

 

"...society celebrates its live conformists and its dead troublemakers..." - Mignon McLaughlin



Fatollah

LoverOfLiberty

by Fatollah on

thanks for the detailed info.

I agree with you, nothing is for free and there is a price to pay, but Fred's approach isn't an option I would choose nor endorse it. 

 


MOOSIRvaPIAZ

Fred like his masters in israel playing the victim card

by MOOSIRvaPIAZ on

once again you show your true colors Fred. You dont care about Iranians. In fact, I dont think you have Iranian blood in you at all.


Marjaneh

LoverOfLiberty,

by Marjaneh on

Since the blogger him/herself frequently goes off topic, I have a question:

 

How does the U.S justify "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness" with 

Capital Punishment? (Mills' argument doesn't apply in this century)

 

 

And if you ask me, the U.S.of A and the UK shouldn't be cherry-picking with human rights...!

"...society celebrates its live conformists and its dead troublemakers..." - Mignon McLaughlin



Marjaneh

Ha!

by Marjaneh on

1. Now that some have almost managed to get to some basic principles of self-defence, (as this poster has gotten tired of repeating pragmatic -active- pacifism) they might RE-read Utilitarianism, before throwing sacrifical lambs in front of monsters and stop mixing up self-defence and liberation with aggression of one sovereign state, acting in its own self-interest, against another, a la 19th C and other usual primitive tactics.

2.Btw the British Raj wasn't exactly a picnic to overthrow!

3.So now you oh so clever people, come up with a sensible idea  instead of the usual mass slaughter.

4.can somebody please show me a factual example of the effectiveness of these lovely 'precision' military attacks in recent years? 

 

Language of war with whatever accent - 'have had enough of it.

"I don't know why I bother, but I do." - Marjaneh

 



pastor bill rennick

Brother Fred you are correct!

by pastor bill rennick on

Contrary to the brothers and sisters around here who deplore any kind of military strikes against the IRR and the machinery, the mullahs themselves would love it more than anything else! All we are saying is let's give it to them but the way we want it!

 

Let's give them MOPS (as many as required) on:

  1. Kahmenei's residence,
  2. Ahmadinejads's residence,
  3. Friday prayers
  4. Mosques
  5. Emamzadehs
  6. Khomeini's shrine
  7. Other mullahs residence
  8. Majles
  9. IRGCs
  10. Basijis
  11.  ...

 

Brother Fred keep spreading this message and may god bless you!


Fred

LoverOfLiberty

by Fred on

You speak my language and I am happy to inform you based on my first hand knowledge so that of a quite a few Iranians inside Iran.

That mutual pledging is an inbred Iranian trait and is manifested as soon as situation permits it. Time and time again throughout her history it has been the case and I am sure this time will not be any different.

The problem is as soon as people get rolling someone in the West gets the bright idea of using them as leverage against IRR and that has made people extra cautious. After all they are dealing with a bunch of savage Islamist Rapists who rape, maim, torture and murder for the glory of their dogma.

There are Paine(s) and Patrick Henries a plenty in Iran. Those who are familiar with the Iranian Constitutional Revolution can name many of them from memory. During last year's mass struggle they were there too.

The only missing ingredient is for the West to publicly stop backing IRR which would be the go signal for people to put everything on the line for their long sought after liberty. 

 


LoverOfLiberty

Fred,

by LoverOfLiberty on

I think in order for Iranians to change their system, they are going to have to do much more than just talk about and beg for change.  They are going to have to "mutually pledge to each other (their) lives, (their) fortunes and (their) sacred honor"...much like the American forefathers did when they declared their independence from England.

Now, if they can only find amonst themselves an Iranian version of Thomas Paine, who can help galvanize their thoughts and desires,...

(If you ask me, the US should be doing more to promote the ideals of universal human rights inside Iran, instead of not doing so with the unsupported hope of obtaining a more amiable position when dealing with the Iranian regime.)


Fred

LoverOfLiberty

by Fred on

LoverOfLiberty,

 

I hear you and of course do agree with Mill. You might have noticed me using the terms enslavement and emancipation on the regular basis to compare what the Islamist Rapists are doing to Iran and Iranians.

But I honestly believe if the sane world helps the fed up Iranians who have proven their readiness and bravery; without any need for devastation of war they can go Iranian on IRR and be done with it.


LoverOfLiberty

Fatollah

by LoverOfLiberty on

No, I am not an Iranian.  I am a US citizen with family roots dating back to the American Revolution, and with an English and Polish ancestry. 

With this being said, however, I've followed the history of Iran since I was very young.  And, I've had several Iranian-American friends through the years who have told me about their family histories in Iran. 

And, although I think a bloodless change of Iran for the betterment of her people-and the world for that matter-would be ideal, I sincerely think that such a Gandhi-like change is very unlikely to succeed.


Fatollah

LoverOfLiberty

by Fatollah on

not that it matters, but are you an Iranian?


LoverOfLiberty

Fred...

by LoverOfLiberty on

The problem I see with the Gandhi-want-to-be Iranian regime appeasing folks who post on here is the notion they project that they can turn the Iranian regime, a tiger, into a kitten simply by stroking it.  And, they apparently believe that espousing peace is the same thing as creating or safeguarding it. 

Although their idealistic methods might sound noble on the surface, one issue with their approach, of course, is the observation that the Iranian regime, like other authoritarian regimes in history, will not likely let go of power, and thus change the status quo, short of being forced to give up power at gun point.   And another issue with their approach I think is that the timeframe needed for their idealistic methods to take hold will very likely be significantly longer than the amount of patience, and thus time, the West is willing to give the regime in Iran.  In short, I think the probability that their methods will change Iran's behavior such that a military conflict between the West and Iran in the future can be avoided is exceptionally small, less than 10%.

With all of this being said, I leave you all with the following quote to ponder:

“But war, in a good cause, is not the greatest evil which a nation can suffer.  War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse.  When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people.  A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice – a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice – is often the means of their regeneration.  A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.  As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.”

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), “The Contest in America.” Harper's New Monthly Magazine, Volume 24, Issue 143, page 683-684. Harper & Bros., New York, April 1862. 


mahmoudg

lets call it surgical attacks

by mahmoudg on

We dont need an all out war,  the American precision war machine can with the help of the same from Israel decapitate the Islamic Regime with minimal collateral damage.  Hence no need for foot soldiers or civilian casualties.


Marjaneh

Fredsy Rumpelstilzchen, oh really?

by Marjaneh on

"Don’t take me wrong, if not the most, war is one of the most
repugnant of crimes human beings commit which except in rare
instances is preventable."

So why continue to repeat the beyond barbarity ?

Why not come up with another idea, e.g. if only a fraction of "diaspora" marched on a sponsored walk right into the country?

(You first. Taarof nemikonam. Shoma aval befarmayid.)

 

"But aside the prevention needing cooperation from both sides, it
needs just condemnation of underlying causation by all anti-war
activists, condemning the cause as well as the effect.
In the case of IRR that has not been the case. 
" So who's been going on all the demos ?

 

And anyway,  "war ... except in rare
instances is preventable"
- oh really? Please back up with historical fact.

 

Oh and about lap poodles. They are only as cute as the lap they are sitting on.

 

 

"...society celebrates its live conformists and its dead troublemakers..." - Mignon McLaughlin