Musings of a former chicken

Ahmadinejad thought so too! (to Kourosh)

Kourosh says: "You are such a Jerook"

Ahmadinejad thought so too:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Wt09rxPu2w&feature...

thanks Kourosh!

Kharmags

You see what i am talking about now?
sheeshaki right back at yourself .

You are such a Jerook

Mrs. vildemose

You note[I think given the track record of IRI and its expansionist behavior will increase the possibility of a future war against Iran in the next decade regardless of who is in charge either in US or Israel.]

My position is very clear about what IR is and is not but, do care to name one square meter of any foreign soil that Iran has expanded to in past lets say 200 years or so ?

-YT 

Mr. Bijan AM

You note[1- IRI will become even less responsive to the world’s pressure on
human right issues, thereby more oppression,]

Do you mean  to say that IR is responsive to to the world's pressure on human right issues NOW, and once they acquire Nukes, they are going to become less responsive?

-YT 

Sure KouroshS(heeshaki)

Now go .... yourself.

Kharmags

Oh, The feeling is 100% mutual. Have no doubts about that. The back and forth is triggered because you DO NOT recognize your boundaries. Do that and we should be good to go.

I am glad that you are handling the being Ignored part very nicely. I am also happy that you have finally LEARNED to respect those who are much more logical than you by calling them "hazrat". Good boy. You showed that you have the potential be somebody.

You "think" that you are making a point in your own mind. Others who make more sense than you and are more logical, Don't. Big difference, Kharmagi.

keep dreaming about the fact that You really have a clue as to what you spew here day in and day out.

I see a significantly

I see a significantly greater risk to Iranian lives and independence under a nuclear armed IRI. This is for two reasons, 1- IRI will become even less responsive to the world’s pressure on human right issues, thereby more oppression, 2- Significantly increased risk of war (By Israel and/or US). In my opinion, every situation is different. You can’t use Russia, Brazil,… as examples to suggest that democracy can progress in every nuclear armed government.

Excellent observation. That is my fear also. Noone so far has come up with a cogent argument that a nuclear-ready Iran will be unattackable or less vulnerable to attack by foregin powers. I think given the track record of IRI and its expansionist behavior will increase the possibility of a future war against Iran in the next decade regardless of who is in charge either in US or Israel.

Don't worry KouroshS

Kourosh, Hazrate Fred NEVER responds to my comments (it has been the case for several years!), That has many advantages, the main one, as it relates to your brain wind, is that my comments to him DO NOT trigger back and forth exchanges.....yet I make my point!

Now, go play with your LEGOs, and let Mammad judge me, as you have no clue, and I don't give a hoot to what you think.

And just when

We thought we were getting somwhere... Someone had to call the refree to walk in and make comments with the potential to start trouble.

Kharmagas jan.

Bikhial sho on making remarks on who using more wisdom in their postings ok? Let the discussion take its natural course. In other words: kafaro baham nariz!

Hazrate Fred

Hazrate Fred, even Bijan's statements are starting to indicate some level of wisdom, moreover it appears that his wisdom is surpassing yours. If I were you, I would be really concerned. Don't you think you are becoming way too fanatic?

Mammad,

Sir, aside from the feud between you and Fred, I can see both sides and don’t feel qualified to pass judgment. As much as we may differ in our political views, I have great respects for both you and Fred for your depth of knowledge and power of expressing yourselves. When I read both your posts I see that you have a lot more in common in your views towards religion which is completely in line with my way of thinking. Therefore, the debate is not about religion. It is not about Islam. It is more about how religion is used in forming political movements, Judaism to form Zionism, Christianity to form Naziism, Islam to form Islamism or Talebanism. And, there again I see some commonalities in your views. The hostility starts when you debate on how to deal with these political systems.

Either I’m too naïve, or you are a very shrewd political writer (or both). Because, in spite of your “Crux” statement, I’ve not felt that you are advocating ownership of nuclear weapons by IRI. You just don’t see it as detrimental in the path to democracy and even may see it as an Iranian right in light of Israel’s position in mid-east. Here is where the two of you violently drift apart and I find myself on Fred’s side. Speaking only my own thoughts, this is not in support of Israel or suggesting any violation of any treaty by IRI. It is only my way of rationalizing the situation. I see a significantly greater risk to Iranian lives and independence under a nuclear armed IRI. This is for two reasons, 1- IRI will become even less responsive to the world’s pressure on human right issues, thereby more oppression, 2- Significantly increased risk of war (By Israel and/or US). In my opinion, every situation is different. You can’t use Russia, Brazil,… as examples to suggest that democracy can progress in every nuclear armed government.

Therefore, to suggest that anyone who is against IRI getting their hands on nukes is pro this and that or does not care about Iran, or is less nationalist than the next guy, is simply wrong and prejudiced. Fred thinks a South African styled sanction will be effective. If you think not, then suggest an alternative (just for the sake of debating). Condemning his opinion is not an “alternative “opinion. He has the courage to stand passionately behind his opinion.

Sir, you and Fred can join and form a formidable force in promoting a secular democracy in Iran. You guys are more alike than different.

Polished Islamists' plan

“My plans are what I have been describing for years, and in particular since April in Tehran Bureau website.”

That is no answer, this talking one thing here and another somewhere else; it is typical Islamist smoke and mirror.

If one were foolish enough to fall for such demagoguery then one had to reconcile the statement about justifying Islamists taking American diplomats as hostages with stuff elsewhere which is totally to the contrary.  And that is not even mentioning the Islamist nuke double talk.

It is a standard Islamist tactic which might fool some but not this one who has seen it more than once and contrary to what some Islamists, even the polished ones, might think has read and studied the very same stuff they have and knows their language of subterfuge.

As president Obama said to the Head Islamist Rapist Khamenei, something to the effect of your opposition to issues are known, lets hear your plan.

So, polished Iranian Islamists besides wanting and lobbying for IRR to have nuke what is  the rest of your plan in detail?

The hostage taking justification statement for the purpose of crosschecking with contents in other sites:

“Yes, storming the embassy, WHEN LOOKED AT WITH THE PRESENT HINDSIGHT, was wrong (although it must be looked at in the context of its time, and although the intention of the student leaders was not to drag that on;”

 Ps, no matter how many times Islamists try to associate themselves with Islam the religion it ain’t gonna work. Islamism is a cutthroat movement and has as much to do with Islam as Nazism did with Christianity, it is way past this sort of childish hide and seek.

Hazrate Fred, where do you stand?

Hazrate Fred, can you share your views on this with us? More specifically do you consider yourself a Jew, a Zionist ... something in between? Where do you stand?

BTW, I know in all likelihood you are not going to respond to me (as I have been in your un-deletable $hit list for a long time). However, if you decide to respond, remember that I am not an "Islamist"
(I am not a Muslim), .., additionally I believe reactionary Muslims are
worse than reactionary Jews and progressive Jews are generally better
than progressive Muslims with the exception of Dr. Sahimi. I believe
Dr. Sahimi is as progressive as the most progressive Jews.

The Link that you are looking for

The link is that they believe in all of those that I listed, but also believe in their religion - Islam. That is the link. Yes, as you say, all progressives should be the way I described, because progressives believe that religion is a private matter. So, one can be Muslim, Jew, Christian, Hindu, etc., but believe in those things, hence be a progressive.

Such progressive Muslims are all over the place, everywhere you look, if you actually want to look for them objectively and without bias and sterotyping. You think journalists like Ahmad Zeidabadi and Eisa Saharkhiz, who have done nothing but writing about the truth, are what? Non-believers in Islam? You think that every single one of millions of the people who demonstrated against the ruling criminals was non-believer?

To the contrtary. I would say the majority are like me - separating their beliefs from what is claimed to be Islam (or Judaism, or Christianity, ...). They reject the violent reactionary backward interpretations of Islamic (Jewish, Christian, ....) teachings, and instead believe in a peaceful forward looking one. You do not believe they exist? Be my guest. Your opinion - even though I believe it to be wrong - is respected. 

Mammad

some more "Islamist propaganda" for you, Fred

Got it wrong again!

First of all, your response implies that you believe that there is no such thing as progressive Muslims. It implies that you believe that there are only two types of Muslims and they are the ones that you described. That is wrong again!

While I do agree that there are some like the types that you describe - just as there are some of the same among Jews, Christians, Hindues, etc. - there is also a third type that I described, namely, progressive Muslims, just as there are progressive Jews, Christian, etc., whether you or anyone else like it or not, whether you or anyone else accept it or not.

The existence of progressives of any type is independent of whatever anyone might say or think. Some of the best, most objective, and informed critics of Israel are Jews themselves, just as some of the best critics of the criminal ruling ayatollahs in Iran are progressive ayatollahs.

Secondly: You are the one who has been advocating sanctions against Iran and what you call "material support" for the people of Iran, without ever specifying what this "material" is. What did I do? I posed legitimate questions: First analyze for us and show why what you suggest won't bring onto Iran what happened to Iraq, and why is it that the Soviet Union with more than 10,000 nuclear warheads and South Africa with at least 6 - not to mention Argentina and Brazil that were virtual nuclear states during their military dictatorships - became democratic, if there is a link between the nuc bomb and lacking democracy.

But, instead of responding, you asked me what my plans are. My plans are what I have been describing for years, and in particular since April in Tehran Bureau website. No one, absolutely no one, has written as much about the democratic movement in Iran and support for it over the same period as I have. This is not bragging, because I have done only my duty toward my native land. So, it is completely clear where I stand.

Mammad

Dear Bijan, Islamist attempt to put lipstick on a pig

One cannot use the word progressive and Islam in one sentence.

Likes of Q keep attempting to make this pig look better by putting lipstick on its lips.  But its a pathetic attempt that ain't working 

Where are all these progressive Muslims?

Other than a few in schools in southern California, where do we have to go to find them? Are these the progressive Muslims who are running IRI?

  Sir, the way you describe them they could be progressive anything, from atheists to believers of devil himself. What has that got to do with the religion of Islam?

  Islamism has nothing to do with Islam the same way Zionism has nothing to do with Judaism.  Why do you guys get so defensive the moment you see the word “Islam” in any sentence. You, directly or indirectly have expressed your opposition to “Islamism” while clearly declaring your devotion to Islam. Why then the overreaction to any comment critical of “Islamism”?  

Fred, I thought we weren' t supposed to talk about anyone else

only Iran, remember? Are you trying to distract from something?

The sad irony is that it is a standard zionist line to pretend all Jews are Zionists. I personally know many who have repeated this to me with a straight face.

Tell a ardent Zionist (as opposed to most reasonable Jews with an open mind) about even the possibilty of existence of "anti zionist Jews" and you will hear loud curses followed by at least a minute of redicule and whining of how "that's just a small insignificant minotiry that no one listens too".

What's so intimidating about antizionist Jews, I wonder?

Progressive Islamist

That game the Islamists play, hiding behind the religion of Islam has long lost its utility. They, the Islamists, can call themselves whatever they like, progressive, regressive or whatever, they are Islamists with nefarious political agenda which includes doing nuke lobbying for the Islamist Rapists.  

The polished ones when asked feel obliged to forgo questions detailing their plan to rid Iran of the Islamist menace but have the urge to defend polished Islamists as a progressive. Daashteem?

Got it all wrong!!

In what follows by progressive Muslims I mean the Iranian ones.

1. Progressive Muslims say that judaism is a religion, and Zionism a political idealogy, and do not mix them with each other, regardless of how they view each.

2. Progressive Muslims attribute most of the world's problems to out of control (and nearly bankrupt) capitalism, the imperialism that is necessary to let it live longer, militarism, and the resulting exploitation and poverty.

3. Progressive Muslims do not perk up when someone denigrates Jews; they condemn it.

4. Progressive Muslims call people what they really are, progressive, right-wing, left-wing, moderate, socialist, communist, and Zionist. They are aware, as George Costanza used to say!

6. Progressive Muslims condemn the CRIMES commited by Zionists, not Zionism itself. An idealogy is a school of thought. It is the people who interpret things and act on it based on their interpretations.

7. Progressive Muslims condemn the CRIMES that have been committed by Israel. Israel is based on Zionism, and calling it as such is no crime.

8. You got this one right. So long as Israel is expansionist and wants to dominate the Middle East, there can be no true friendship. But, like everything else, things can change also.

9. Progressive Muslims point to international agreements regarding the Caspian Sea, and demand actions accordingly. In particular, they point to the 1921 and 1940 Agreements between the Soviet Union and Iran that stipulate that no side can take unilateral action against the other.

But, Russia, the legal inheritor of those two Agreements, has violated them by reaching separate agreements with the other lithoral states, except Iran. Therefore, progressive Muslims condemn Russia and declare that they do not bargain Russia's veto in the UNSC in return for giving up Iran's rights and national interests.

10. Progressive Muslims consider human rights and respect for them as UNIVERSAL VALUES. Therefore, they condemn their violations everywhere, both inside Iran and outside.

Finally, Progressive Muslims support Iran's nuclear rights in the framework of the international agreements that it has signed, as part of their defense of Iran's true national interests, but also fully support the international community demands that Iran must also carry out its obligations in the same frameworks.

Mammad

Kharmagas Jan

I only wish that he did serve with Dai Jan Napelon, At least he would have had some sense of humility.

Craig.... Keep flagging till your flagging index finger is blue in the face.

-YT 

Did Craig serve with Dai jAn Napelon? (to Ayhab)

Did Craig serve in the wars of Kazeroon and Mammssani with Dai JAn Nepelon?

BTW Ayhab

Just because the moderators don't remove your abusive and slanderous comments doesn't mean I'm going to stop flagging them. And I plan to keep pointing them out when I do. You throw such childish temper tantrums about everyone else's behavior that I kinda enjoy it. And obviosly based on that nerd-rage post you made about your Ostaad account being bloacked, it gets under your skin!

Craig

Are you telling me that you have been hired as a foot solider to carry the hate messages of the hate master himself Mr. Fred here?

What a disgrace for an ex marine dude.

-YT 

Flagged you again, Ayhab

It is NOT slanderous to accuse a racist of racism, and you are falling ever so deeply in that category.

I challenge you to produce even one racist comment I ever made on this website. You on the other hand have made sveral racist comments about me, and more than I could count against others. I even challenged you about ethnic slurs you used for white westerners a couple of times. Once you told me not to "take it personally" - as if racist attacks are anything but personal? And the other time you said you were joking - as if there's anything funny about racism?

It absolutely is slanderous to make a charge such as racism or bigotry against somebody with no evidence. That's a blatant attempt at character assassination. And you do it all the time. You accused me of being in the KKK just yesterday.

Craig aka nokhod e har ash ooops

oppps duplicate dedication :)

Amateur historian

Polished Islamist Lady asks and then kindly shares some of her understanding of the subject:

“Aghaye Fred, have you noticed how zionists are selective about THEIR historical memory in a funny way?”

 The short answer is no, I’ve been preoccupied with the plight of Iranians under the yoke of the Islamist Rapist Republic. But since due to your dogma you do not have that preoccupation may I suggest next time providing references to credible sources so others of your mindset could benefit.

Ayhab

Flagged you for that abusive comment towards Fred, Ayhab. I've never seen Fred make a racist comment on this webiste. On the other hand, you've made openly racist comments towwards me on several occasions.

It's slanderous to falsely accuse somebody of racism just because you can't think of anything better to say. Especially when the accuser is a known bigot.

Now I'll sit back and watch how quickly the moderators don't delete your defamatory comment.

PS-Aren't you proud to be the only person on IC I'm flagging? :)

Fred

Polished vs crude, is it like you purified people used to reffer as a  good black and a bad black[good slave vs a bad slave]?

-YT