www.facebook.com/iransecularii

: o

Y AWN 

David

I just came back here and read your reply. Not nice !

My English is not sufficiently good. What I'd said in my last post, was just to thank you for having said it finally with your own words. It was an explanation as to  "why" I had asked you "before" to give a clear-cut yes or now answer to the question. Not to criticizing you, not whining.

I don't have this character of whining and if  it happens to  me to whine, rest assure that it would never be for you.

make up your mind Souri

First you want "clear cut " yes or no answer , so I COMPLY and say yes

then you change your mind the next day and write: "When you say something in you own words, there's more passion in it and people would understand and believe you much better, than when you say just "Yes, me too" or "so do I"

Which is what I had already done in so many words already !!!

I give up, you just like to whine! LOL

Yes quiet this...

In the French version they had translated the word as "Idem"...sorry.

What I wanted to say is : When you say something in you own words, there's more passion in it and people would understand and believe you much better, than when you say just "Yes, me too" or "so do I" . Because this way, leave lots of ambiguity as to "what part of the subject you heartily believe" and to what degree ? That, makes a lot of difference in this kind of debate.

Clip should set this issue straight too :-)

it think the word used was

"ditto".... :-)

Dear Niloufar e Parsi :-)

No problem Dear... That is why we engage in civil communications and exchanges, to understand each other better and to help resolve any misunderstandings. 

peace, love and "light"

David jan

I obviously misread you a little there. thanks for the clarification, and I hope i did not sound like i was being petty about a 'word'. That was not the intention.
Peace!

Dear Souri

I must have missed that part of the movie: )

IDEM 

Peace, love and LIGHT

David

I know all these conversation tired you and made you mad now. Please don't get mad. There's just a miss-communication here. You had said things in your words, and I do hear them in my way :O)) 

I had read every single post and blog of yours on this topic, promise.

There's an example of mis-communication like this i want to give you, so to be clear why I ask you a precise answer :

In that old movie "Ghost", the girl was always saying to the guy: I love you, to which the guy always replied : Idem.....

Once she complained. She said : but you never tell me that you love me. The guy was so surprised, he said : but I always said, Idem...what it means ? She said : Idem means, Idem. I love you means something else ! 

Don't worry thogh....

Souri

I have said it at least 10 times, if you bother to read what I keeeeeeep repeating . The answer has been :

YES TOO !

But I see more to it that ONE SIDE like you do.

David

Niloofar asked you a simple question, to which I don't see your direct answer :

"israel was essentially founded on the basis of raw violence and
terrorism, and has a very unhealthy and constant apetite for ethnic
cleansing. yet i don't see you calling it a monster..."

What is your EXACT position in regard to Israel and her terrorizing action to the Palestinian people ?

I agree with you that Israel is a legitimate and legal country. I don't question her legitimacy, but wanna know your exact position toward Isreal's action (which we call barbaric actions) ?

Would you please give us a clear-cut definition of what Israel is now?

Is she a Monster or is not ?

Please give us a very direct answr (if you wish) without going trough Iran and violation of human rights in Iran and what you have been saying about that for years....etc.

Now, the focus is only :Israel

Thanks

you lost me there!

are you now saying that the US, Israel, Hamas, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Taleban and IRI are all terrorists? So we are discussing the theoretical princiles of humanity rather than the power relations in the region and how to search for a solution that is most just and sustainable?

PS: i don't think you should brig animals into it. 

Is Terrorist is a better word?

Anyone, group or government, who intentionally blows up and kills innocent civilians to their death and injuries is terrorist.

Even Wars as horrible as they are have international rules of conduct. 

We can not condemn killing of civilians in one place and condone it in another. That is an ugly hypocrisy to live by.

Blood of humanity is red and warm , regardless of their nationality, religion, geography, gender and color. It is as simple as that and we don't need a lesson in history to know that.

A 1 year old child is capable of knowing that by crying when s/he sees blood of another human being gushing out.

That is called humanity.

PS: even animals are capable of such recognition.

David jan (on monsters)

there is something unconvincing about your approach to 'objectivity'. You sound a little like the fence that you sit on should grow both horizontally and vertically to obliterate only the sides that you call monsters.

Al Qaeda, Taleban (another ex-ally of the US), Hezbollah, Hamas are all monsters equally? How is that objective?

How about the issue of authenticity or legitimacy?

Both Al Qaeda and Taleban were heavily made up of foreign troops who espoused an ideology that was further from the US than that of the Soviets. The Wahabi 'monsters' that the Taleban and Al Qaeda embodied reached out across the world and played right into the hands of PNAC. It was almost an orchestrated project. and i haven't even mentioned their truly monsterous acts in afghanistan.

now lets take Hezbollah: they emerged in the middle of a war and grew into a solid part of Lebanon's political structure, and they have never tried to undermine the principle of representation. on the contrary, a close look would reveal that they are among the biggest agents of pluralism in the country. 

as for Hamas, they are much closer to the ideology of the Egyptian muslim brotherhood that is today far more open minded and pluralistic than its earlier character or its wahabi counterparts, which is partly why the Saudis oppose Hamas.

in fact, Hamas and Hezbollah both enjoy wide support among their populations, as attested by the countries' respective election results. Not a sinlge wahabi militant or ruler (Saudis) has seriously considered the option of holding fair elections.

So how is 'monster' a fair description of such disparate groups of actors?

israel was essentially founded on the basis of raw violence and terrorism, and has a very unhealthy and constant apetite for ethnic cleansing. yet i don't see you calling it a monster. so why are hezbollah and hamas monsters now that they are respected and elected holders of political office in their respective countries? 

would it not be more pragmatic and objective to stop calling legitimate and authentic local power holders monsters so that there can be a more conducive environment for peace?

Peace!

Dear Sobh

Good article. Thank you. Here are couple of paragraphs I found telling:

"سخن در این است که چگونه دکترین نژاد پرستانه کسانی که در آلمان ملت خود را سرور ملل جهان و بشریت می نامیدند مانند ویروسی نامرئی، درمیان بخش مهمی از مردم اسرائیل و بنیانگذاران دولت آن، که نیاکان عبرانی بخشی از آنان نیز خود را از دوران باستان « قوم برگزیده خداوند» دانسته بودند، فکری که ازطریق تعالیم دینی به آن "مخلوط ترکها و اسلاوها و عبرانیها" منتقل شده بود، چنان تولید مثل کرد که نتیجه سیاسی و عملی آن، به شکل استراتژی محو ملت فلسطین از نقشه جغرافیا، یعنی یک «راه حل نهایی» دیگر درآمدسخن در این است که چگونه دکترین نژاد پرستانه کسانی که در آلمان ملت خود را سرور ملل جهان و بشریت می نامیدند مانند ویروسی نامرئی، درمیان بخش مهمی از مردم اسرائیل و بنیانگذاران دولت آن، که نیاکان عبرانی بخشی از آنان نیز خود را از دوران باستان « قوم برگزیده خداوند» دانسته بودند، فکری که ازطریق تعالیم دینی به آن "مخلوط ترکها و اسلاوها و عبرانیها" منتقل شده بود، چنان تولید مثل کرد که نتیجه سیاسی و عملی آن، به شکل استراتژی محو ملت فلسطین از نقشه جغرافیا، یعنی یک «راه حل نهایی» دیگر درآمد"

چه بهتر که شمار این مخالفان انساندوست اجرای "راه حل نهایی" درباره ملت فلسطین همچنان بیشتر و بیشتر شود تا میدان بدست عوامفریبانی نیافتد که با پنهان شدن در پشت حقوق ملت فلسطین، لگدمال کردن حقوق ملت خود را لوث می کنند (سران جمهوری اسلامی)؛ یا حماس و جهاد اسلامی و کسانی که چون طالبان و القائده چیان و نظائر رنگارنگ آنان، که برای ماهی گرفتن از آب گل آلود، نوع دیگری از برتریجویی را عنوان می کنند: "برتری دینی" که در آن "دین ِبرتر" (یعنی اسلامی که ابزار پیشرفت مقاصد شوم مستبدانه خود ساخته اند) جای نژاد برتر "مرحوم" هیتلر و «قوم برتر» صهیونیستها را می گیرد.

Peace

یک نژادپرستی ، نژادپرستی دیگری را توجیه نمی‏کند

Dear Capt

Ron Paul as usual tells it like it is . I always had much regards for him, I even voted for him during the primaries

Indeed US helped empower Osama to oppose Soviets and Israel helped empower Hamas to oppose PLO, their two main enemies at the time.

But when you create monsters , at the end the monster that you have created gets out of hand and come at yourself.

There is no doubt that US and other powers have been interfering in the affairs of the world and middle east for decades.

But what we are dealing with at the present time is whoever created the monster , it now exists and they jeopardize everyone and we have to encounter them.

and Hezbollah is the child of the bigger monster : Islamic Regime in Iran.

Opposing Hamas , Al Qaeda or Hezbollah does not equate approving wrong policies of Israel or US.

Monsters are monsters and whatever side they are on at different times and whoever they were created by.

Anony112

once you start defending your grammatical error, conversation is officially closed.

lets get back to real issue, shall we?

capt_ayhab [-YT]

Word from a Prophet and a King

Why don't we listen to a word from a prophet and a king on this issue of violence whether in Gaza, Iran, Iraq, the United States or anywhere else for that matter?:

//www.metacafe.com/watch/1126121/cant_we_all_...

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMfr2CgIPhg

childish vs. child

The suffix "ish" would follow an adverb or an adjective it is intented to modify. It would follow a noun like child to suggest that the logic is "child like." I did not say that the logic is "child like." I said the poster is a child applying the logic of a child, hence "child logic."

Catch you on the other side. :)

Anony112

Be original shazdeh, copy-catting won't get you anywhere. Besides its childISH logic not child logic. lol

have good week end ;-)

capt_ayhab [-YT]

AnnyMoi

I stand corrected. what else did you not like?

capt_ayhab [-YT]

Haw, Haw, Haw

//images.easyart.com/i/prints/rw/en_easyart/l...

Capt. kangaroo

Ron Paul is a representative not a senator.

Censorship!

Unfortunately i have not gotten any explanation about why my comments about this issue at this page,disappeared after 2 minutes!

If you all find it ok, it is ok to me, if you have any respect for your pretended democratic values, then you should ask yourself if this site is the right place to be!

This censorship has ben obvious to me, you can see the visble limits drawn by mr/mrs Censorchi here, it has happened to me 3 times and that is 3 times too much.

I am not disappointed , because i am not surprised, so thank you all, and because of respect for myown values i will not engage myself at this site any more.

Any serious intellectual person apart from ideological or political adherences should reconsider his/her participation at this site.

Ahab's Child logic

Now you are talking like a 7th grader. Show me one place where I have said I condone the invasion by Israel. For your information I have filed a petition against Israel's invasion of Gaza. Your thinking is so immature that you assume that if one person objects to Hamas, or Hezbullah, then that means he supports Israel's aggression. That shows the level of your logic and the reason you can't understand simple concepts, Ahab.

Show me one place where I have said I support Israel's aggression. Your credibility is rapidly going down the toilet like Cameron's.

who created Hamas????????

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, admits that USA and Israeli Gov. CREATED Hamas in order to defeat PLO. This is such a shameless hypocrisy folks. Please watch the video to the end.

capt_ayhab [-YT]

happy now?????

Anony112

Your point has been crystal clear, You condemn killing of civilians by Hamas and the rest, but you CONDONE killing of defenseless children and women by Israeli Criminal army?

I see that it is perfectly OK with you when IDF herds homeless children to UN school, and 24 hours later shells it with the most inhumane weaponry called DIME[Dense Inert Metal Explosive], which if doesn't kill, will cause CANCER later on.

just FYI, go look up DIME : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dense_Inert_Metal_Exp...

I do get your point SIR, crystal clear

capt_ayhab [-YT]

PS. get over your childish and ignorant name calling game, it doesn't work with me.[your hero]... beside dude, name is aYhab and not Ahab, if you do not know what it is ask me.

Ahab

I am getting your point and your thought is not followed through to its logical conclusion nor is it relevant. Hamas, Hezbullah and the Viet Cong did and do condone murdering innocent civilians. Your hero Cameron says that a person who tries to discredit such organizations is fooling others and himself. While the statement is somewhat ambiguous the only reasonable meaning that can be attributed to it is that these organizations should not be discredited because they are credible.

Regardless of how Hamas and Al Qeada were established we have to look at what they have become. To say that they should not be discredited is probably one of the most shocking statements I have ever heard from a graduate student at a major university in the free world. That is the issue I am taking with what he said regardless of whether it is "the gentleman's" opinion. Perhaps he mispoke in the heat of the discussion but when I add it to everything else he said I do not believe that is the case. I believe he is saying he supports these murdering terrorist organizations.

Are you getting my point sir?