the myth of ‘western rationality’


the myth of ‘western rationality’
by Niloufar Parsi

it is clear that there is a major ideological barrier to real dialogue between iran and the west. mistranslations are common, misunderstanding is encouraged, and it is easy to get the feeling that there is a strategy in place to ensure confusion and animosity instead of goodwill. i tend to see more of this mischief emanating from the west, but that is probably related to the fact that i live here, and it is easier to catch the lies on this side. iran is probably just as guilty.

but there is this one specific western myth that is definitely a big part of the problem: the myth of western ‘rationality’ that presupposes many positive qualities associated with the west and negative ones associated with the east, including iran.

in a different context and time, it would be called racism, but i expect that definition will come later. a bit like how the slave trade was first totally ‘justified’ by religious, racial and other myths, and then later described as ‘racist’. at some point, many westerners believed that their genes or skin colour gave them some sort of spiritual and/or intellectual superiority to other ‘races’, and enslaving people or taking over their countries was more like a favour, a civilizing effect. they sugar-coated this kind of racist self-deception with terminology such as ‘the white man’s burden’, and a host of other ideological justifications. the act of plunder was described as some kind of civilizing mission.

remnants of this kind of mind game remain today in the western discourse on iran. the ordinary american is more likely to see iran and iranians as ‘irrational’ beings who cannot be trusted with a nuclear bomb. but they are a little more subtle than that. knowing full well the racist connotations in openly labeling other countries and cultures as ‘irrational’, they apply further sugar coating by going one step removed and using a term like ‘dangerous’ instead.

if we look out for the terms ‘danger’, ‘threat’ and ‘risk’ in any report or speech on iran by israeli and western media and politicians, it becomes quite clear that the agenda is for the conflict situation to persist – particularly, in the minds of their own citizens. the politicians themselves are fully aware of realities on the ground.

what is this reality? well, we all have our own perceptions, but mine is this:

iran is and has been acting far more rationally than her enemies would like to admit. her priorities have included
-          protecting iran and the regime
-          challenging the power of israel – a proven regional warmonger - and building alliances in the region to contain israel and her allies and arming them in order to create a buffer zone for iran
-          working against american interventionism and warmongering in the region. building a global alliance against american imperialism
-          growing her influence in iraq once saddam’s regime was removed, and preparing the ground to take over as the biggest foreign sponsor once the americans leave iraq,
-          same as above for afghanistan only with less success
-          building up her own armaments industry,
-          finding ways to defeat or weaken sanctions,
-          building up political capital among muslim nations,

-          developing nuclear capability mainly within internationally allowed rules, but remaining vigilant of the iaea and other un agencies as they often behave like tools of american imperialism, and
-          adopting, and speaking from a position of strength rather than servitude

nothing about iran’s regional policy is particularly ‘irrational’. iran could have been more strategic and effective, and could have taken a more conciliatory path. all that may have been possible if one allows for the remote possibility that her foes would have reacted differently. but khatami perhaps proved the opposite.

in any case, while the iranian approach might have been better, it has not been irrational. on the contrary, iran’s military expenditure as a percentage of gdp and her overall tendency to war is far more humane and rational than that of the us or israel. iran’s military architecture is designed and built for defensive purposes. the us military is designed for offence, so much so that they could not respond effectively to a natural disaster such as hurricane katrina at home.

in other words, the us military structure is designed for plunder and loot in the name of ‘rationality’, ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’. take your pick.

truth is, we are all equally irrational!


Recently by Niloufar ParsiCommentsDate
US media double standard
Jul 21, 2010
patriot dog
Jul 13, 2010
the trouble with capitalism
May 24, 2010
more from Niloufar Parsi
Niloufar Parsi


by Niloufar Parsi on

that's a little unfair. of course i have not read all the blogs.

you suggesting that i should believe some blogs more than the facts reported by the UN? ok at least give me some links to the blogs your mention or other references.


NP: Your assertions about

by vildemose on

NP: Your assertions about the poor have been debunked at least a hundred times by various bloggers at different times.  Either you don't spend a lot of time here on IC or just not interested in reading others comments otherwise, you wouldn't repeat the same misinformation.

 You mostly like to write and you like the sound of your keyboard..


From another thread

by SamSamIIII on


 Mehrban jaan, I copy paste my post from another thread here.

Islamic revolution 101 for lefto-dummies;

1-Ommaties, tokhmeh Qadess & mullahs instigated , initiated & organised  the unrest in Qom to regain their thousand yr old hold on power.

2-The gullible rest,  followed mullah's cause for reasons such as boredom, adventure, free gas or lil bit of freedom wishfully hallucinating that the outcome will be different than what the main organizers & propogators advertise it to be.

3-Islamic republic was born. The gullible herd such as clueless neighbor downstairs not being able to deal with reality of what just happened & their own wishfull idiocy invented the term ; "hijacked revolution". But the morons never realize that it was never their "revolution" to begin with for it to be hijacked.

The ommaties are correct to point out that this was truly an ommatie revolution from the get go , initiated,funded,organised & utilised by mullah class which was joined by the herd of clueless wishing to see a frog having a baby prince.


Path of Kiaan Resurrection of True Iran Hoisting Drafshe Kaviaan // //

Niloufar Parsi

mehrban jan

by Niloufar Parsi on

you are gonna get me into so much trouble girl! lol!

you know, marx and engels were not working class at all! the iranian revolution was done in the name of the poor from the start. reading the first part of your post one would get the impression that the poor have only gotten poorer since the revolution. i am not sure that is the case. mehrban jan, the problem that i detect here is not that the raw data is unavailable to those who are interested in learning. the problem seems to be that those who have no interest in finding out the facts, make blanket statements against the truth. no disrespect intended.

you may not be familiar with an annual report published by undp called the human development report. it provides rankings of different countries' progress across various indicators of success. you can check for example iran's education indicators. there you will see quite an impressive performance by iran. there are far more schools, clinics, paved roads, electricity, phones etc than there was before the revolution. this includes in proportional terms and not just in volume.

there is far less hunger and disease among the poor in iran today than there was before the revolution. it is the same with most other countries in the world. am not saying iran is different. but you exaggerate when you say:

"The poorer class in Iran has been neglected and misrable for a long time
some would hang on to whomever that might help them escape even for a
day the misery of hunger and disease."

the rest of what you say makes more sense to me, and i truly appreciate your 'face value' comment. likewise, i would treat most here the same way.


Niloufar Parsi

dear david

by Niloufar Parsi on

first of all, thank you for your candour and fine manner. i wish some others could learn from you. i mean that positively.

the referendum was clearly misrepresented, but one thing about it remains indisputable: it was not for secularism. 'islamic' was there in the title. the transition from that to secularism is necessarily difficult on a number of levels. and in historical terms, the iranian revolution is not that old. if i am not mistaken, it took the french around 70 years to get any democracy worth its name after the revolution. many countries went though long periods of military rule after independence from colonial rule in mid-20th century. but there is a growing wave of democratic transition sweeping many countries, and it will certainly affect iran too. 

on the issue of technology, you adopt the position of the west on the matter. the position that i have described as 'racist' in my blog. i suggest we clearly need to agree to disagree on this one. :)

i don't trust the mullahs any more or less than the us or israel with technology, including nuclear. as i have tried to explain (not sure if it was here or on captain's blog), i see more brutality from us and israel, if we take all human beings to be equal in worth.

the us operates on the basis of the opposite. this is how after 3,000 poor souls were slaughtered in NY, millions upon millions of people have been brutally punished.

i do not see enough rationality in that other than a brutal show of force coupled with a couple of sneaky schemes cooked up beforehand. PNAC style. their use of technology has been overwhelmingly military based and used very effectively for inflicting death and destruction. 

i wish abarmard had written another blog about vietnam to get their take on iran, the regime, the west etc. (or did i just miss it?!). from my own experience in several countries, i believe the great majority in the world are totally fine with iran being a nuclear power. they also see iran as both brave and stubborn at the same time - revolutionary type i guess!

point is, the western position on iran is against world opinion, not just iran. in fact, i am not sure that most people in the west are that much against iran either. even within the iaea there are many who see no problem with iran at any level at all. by good fortune, i met one of them not long ago.

bebakhshid saretoon ra dard avardam :)



Mehraban Jan: agreed and

by vildemose on

Mehraban Jan: agreed and well done. We need a government that represents and reinforces the true will of the people, who are the true source of all sovereignty, and the only legitimating base for any free and independent  state.


marhoum Kharmagas

Iranian flavor of Christopher Hitchens (to Niloufar)

by marhoum Kharmagas on

Niloufar jaan, tou ke dobaareh kam lotfi kardi!? Here and there Failed Prophet of Khorasan makes sense, nevertheless as he just stated, he is in ET's camp (ET, the Iranian flavor of Christopher Hitchens- the Failed Trotskist of England). Of course he is not smart enough to know where ET really stands.  

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Fear Mongering

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


is used by many sides and many governments. It is most definitely a staple of IRI. But they are not the only ones. The right wing in Israel most assuredly uses fear to gain power. Anyone who seriously believes the nonsense coming out of Netanyahu is as delusional as AN. IRI is not going to blow up a bomb in Israel and take out Palestine and Jerusalem with it. The idea is idiotic and fear mongering.

Other fear mongers include Britain with the 45 minute speech of Tony Blair. McCain aka Bomb Bomb Iran and so on.

I despise the Mullahs and IRI but that does not make me McCain's ally. I am under no illusion that Netanyahu hates Iran and its people. I am therefor not his friend.

We need to go into this thing with our eyes open. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. That was MKO's mistake to ally with Saddam even though they knew how much he hated Iran. See where it got them: they are nothing; hated by left and righ. I want what is good for Iran not just to take revenge.

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Benross Jan

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


I don't know how you got some impressions about me. You are confusing me with other people. I will repeat my positions. If anything is unclear please ask me.

  • Independence is not the same as isolation. Obviously Iran and the whole world are interdependent. But I like to see decision regarding Iran be made by those whose allegiance is to Iran. Not the IRI and not Washington.
  • I have never advocated class struggle. In fact by Iranian standards I am right of center. In my mind class struggle is a waste of time and I most definitely do not advocate it for Iran.
  • I am in the movement for freedom and strongly believe in it. I support David ET; MM and Ramin Tork. I want a secular democracy in Iran. As for a referendum my position is similar to the gentlemen I mentioned above. 

Anonymous Observer

Thank you Samsam Jaan- Vildemose made a point earlier on another

by Anonymous Observer on

thread.  You could not have said it any better.  Fear mongering is the IRI's most effective tool for survival.  The IRI needs an external enemy, even a self created one, to survive.

Vildemose made a great  point on another thread, and that is that the IRI and its lackeys, by their belligerence, fear mongering and a false show of their false "military  power" stir the fanatics and warmongers on the other side into a frenzy, and that is where the real danger is.  God help the people of Iran.   



by Mehrban on

I do not see this as a class conflict.  Some of the supporters of IR are among the richest in Iran now.  It is true that IR has tapped into "some" of the poorer classes and has tried to buy their loyalty.  The poorer class in Iran has been neglected and misrable for a long time some would hang on to whomever that might help them escape even for a day the misery of hunger and disease.  If IR has given them some bread, then good for IR. But have they really worked to make the lives of the poor better?  Have they really worked to educate their children in a way that they could be independent citizens.  They have taken their children and made them Padoos of the Rahbar where they smell the steps of Rahbar.  They have created an army of violent jahels that slash people at peaceful demonstrations.  Or can be rounded up for show of support at a moments notice.  

Iran does not have to choose between "IR and Puppets of the West" as it is presented here or elsewhere.  We as Iranians have to realize that there are alternatives to the cliches, and we should not support a government that is either or.  I truly beleive that even that awareness is a huge step towards Independence in Iran.  Independence is not standing at a podium and barking at the world while your economy is in a downward spiral, while your unemplyment rate is astronomical, while your courts are being held and lead by ignorant judges based on a religious teachings, while the best and the brightest can not wait to have an opportunity to leave their homeland.  While people that merely criticize the economics of the government are put in jail.  

The Iran/Iraq war was what established IR in Iran, given its unpopularity at home, itching for another war is not something I put besides IR.  

I honestly don't even know what an appologist is  the context of IR and I am not interested in labels, as I have said in my comment before, I take you as I take everyone else here for their words. 



by benross on

This is an extremely important issue. Any social entity, once created, becomes a 'life form' and the instinct of survival kicks in, overshadowing whatever was the main reason of its creation. This is true for political parties, true for government institutions, true for labour unions, even true for the local bridge association of senior citizens.

I once noted that I prefer a democratic system in which all candidates for an election are 'local'. Followed by internal election for regional and national institutions. This mechanism doesn't stop the creation of institutions having an instinct of survival (which is not necessarily a bad thing) but it builds up a foundation as close as possibly they could, to their main reason of being.

This doesn't eliminate the need for national political parties. But it requires them to function at a local level, thus, keeping them close to the people, and as a bonus, eliminating the potential risk of cultivating the cult of personality in political personalities.

It's not very inspiring for those who see themselves à la Rajavi, mumbling in front of millions. But it is the way to go in my view.

Fouzul Bashi

David et - trust with technology

by Fouzul Bashi on

"Israel's abuse of technology is irrlevant to the fact that IR should  be trusted with nuclear technology or not. ...

Quite the contrary it is absolutely relevant, since Israel is the country that is leading the campaign against Iran's nuclear technology on charges of Iran's irrationality and untrustworthiness, as you argue!!  I therefore asked you the relevant question as to who has the history of the most horrendous abuse of technology of all sorts, both in magnitude and scope?!  DOMESTICALLY (in the case of Israel, in lands under its colonial occupation) or EXTERNALLY? 


"I did not answer your question because it has nothing to do with the subject ... "

The subject of this blog was the issue of irrationality of the West vis a vis Iran! 

"and I do not fall in to the distraction from my concern which is Iran and Iranians being discussed on". 

??? If you read what I said, I was actually discussing Iran and Iranians too!!!   



samsamjan: Even noble Causes

by vildemose on

samsamjan: Even noble Causes when they become Institutionlized, they tend to devour their original cause first and foremost to continue their existence.



by benross on

We can talk forever about freedom but unless we propose how to reach it and do it, the words  remain as nothing but a big hollow drum.


Then ask me how to reach it and I will gladly explain.


Without "war" the ommatie cheerleaders

by SamSamIIII on


are irrelevant. So vildmose,  they try so hard to make the threat relevant for survival . pure & simple, a cane(assaa) to beat non-conforming elements with. In the process any one & I mean any one who side steps the main ommatie theme is considered a "warmonger". So naturaly, even me who bash shaikh culture and is not involved in political bickering is considered a warmonger by an an ommatie. Their plan is to aggravate & incite the west by their daily rants to accomplish their dirty task of inviting war to Iran so their agenda can survive. I can see right thru the ommatie joker.

Path of Kiaan Resurrection of True Iran Hoisting Drafshe Kaviaan // //

David ET

Dear benross

by David ET on

"freedom of expression and freedom of association" can not be created under the current regime nor in a vaccum but can be assured under a secular democracy.

We can talk forever about freedom but unless we propose how to reach it and do it, the words  remain as nothing but a big hollow drum.


The issue of secularism I

by benross on

The issue of secularism I will be happy discuss but respecting the subject of your blog will leave it to another place and time...

I'm afraid David, these are 'seculars' you are dealing with. You need to focus on freedom of expression and freedom of association. Iranians, using their freedom, will opt for secularism by themselves.


NP: How long are you going

by vildemose on

NP: How long are you going to use fasle equivalencies and analogies including exploiting death of innocent people? You beloved IRI helped and still helps the big bad US in Iraq to keep Shi'itte secterians like al malik and Hakim  in power?

Molla: How do you think the 30 million Sunni refugees kicked out of their homes and places of business by Shiites whom your beloved IRI supports? How about those gay sunni Palestinians who were burtally chased out of Iraq by your favorite IRI backed shiite death squads??

Akeh cheghadar hypocrisy?

One life is too many on either side. Quantity does not make you less murderous or criminal or any less accountable or more worthy of support or perservation. End does not justify the means unless you're a tyrannical  ideologue; Islamist, Christian fundamentalist, Likudniks, Toudehi, communists...

Secret Prison Revelations may Hurt al-Maliki’s bid for Reelection


NP Khanoom: The far left anti-war movement has turned into a gigantic institution that needs war to keep its 'industry' alive. CASMII is not in the business of doing what's in the interest of Iran.

David ET

Dear Niloufar

by David ET on

The problem that today the world has is not with Iran or Iranians but with the regime that rules it and that applies to the use of nuclear technology also.

This has nothing to do with revolution of 1979 , referendum etc but with the rulers of the regime and their views and policies. (People voted for Islamic Republic PRESUMING that it will insure what they fought for, which was establishment of democracy and human rights  and not what they got which was repression. What they voted for and what was delivered were different. Iranians did not vote to have even less freedom than shah's time , to have more repression than shah's time, etc..what was promised even by khomeni and what was delievered were 100% opposite one another) 

With all due respect, how you wrote your article was very self-deceiving because you made it sound like it is the Iranians and not the ruling regime the presently others have issue with.

In fact there are many Iranians including myself who also oppose regime having such technology. This has nothing to do with Israel or US but with the regime and the best interest of Iran and Iranains.

I assure you of this: If regime owns nuclear arms , if needed and in order to prolong itself , will not hesitate to use it ... and that will not be in the best interest of Iranians.

The issue of secularism I will be happy discuss but respecting the subject of your blog will leave it to another place and time... but in short , your #1 and #2 concerns : Human Rights and Democracy are not and will not be possible under this regime as has been shown to reformists during the experiences of the past 31 years ...and the only solution is a secular democracy that assures human rights and peace. As for holding on to the regime for fear of Iran's division, in fact the current regime and its ethnic, social and human repression are the biggest underlying cause that can lead to division and not a secular democracy that respects and protects ALL Iranians and their rights.

These presumptions are results of regime's propoganda which rules by creating fears such as Iran's division, Isreal or US hatred of Iranians ! (equating regime with Iranians) etc etc... and the intellectuals liek yourself should not allow themselves to fall in to these traps.

David ET

Fouzul Bashi

by David ET on

Israel's abuse of technology is irrlevant to the fact that IR should  be trusted with nuclear technology or not. I did not answer your question because it has nothing to do with the subject and I do not fall in to the distraction from my concern which is Iran and Iranians being discussed on



by benross on

I want to move  back myself.

Then fight for setting up a referendum to clear things up. Fight for freedom of expression and freedom of association.

You see dear VPK, 'independence' is a myth. The whole world is interdependent. U.S is dependent to China for borrowing money. China is dependent to U.S market and market stability that she can provide to the world. This is just an example of interdependence between two superpower. Now you can imagine how this dependence intensifies when it comes to weak economies such as Iran under IRI.

'Independence' in new world is only defined by the 'independence' of individual citizens from interference, in expressing themselves freely and in associating with their like-mind freely. In establishing a democratic process so that the decision making is reflective of this individual independence in a collective social contract. This is the true independence, without a trace of demagoguery.

You want an independent Iran, join the movement for freedom.

But of-course demagoguery has no boundary. There are those who readily sacrifice freedom in the name of 'class struggle'. (using their freedom of-course!)

Well, class struggle -whatever it is- can it be advanced without freedom of expression and freedom of association? Ask this from Vaahed workers. Ask this from all those workers fighting for their six months unpaid salaries.

Class struggle? my ass. The only struggle she is concerned about is the struggle of her class ass. And I'm sure she doesn't mind my proletarian language! 

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Mehrban Jan

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


Thanks you. I agree 100% that IRI is not democratic and does not protect freedoms and rights of Iranians. It is not a representative government and does not have the good of people in mind. In addition it is unfortunately giving the enemies of Iran ammunition for adding these sanctions and military threats (which I hope do not become reality)

What I want to see is a representative secular government in Iran. Or at least something that is not so overtly repressive. Then get the West (and yes we all know what I am talking about) off Iran's back so people can get on with their lives. 

I don't want to see Iranians all leaving and not going back. I want Iran to be an environment where Iranians want to go back to. I want to move  back myself.


Niloufar Parsi

dear David

by Niloufar Parsi on

you mentioned:

you equating "Iran" with the "religious military regime that rules Iran"

yes in a way i am. the reason is not at all because i think this regime is what iran could or should stand for. it is not. the reason is because far too many people talk as if iran is totally separate from a 'foreign-imposed' islamic regime that was parachuted in from an arab country. this depiction is far more false than equating iran with the regime, in my opinion. reason? the 1979 revolution and the referendum that was held. the one 'we' (secularists) lost.

i have on a few occasions pointed out to you - often indirectly - that iranians may not be as supportive of a secular state as we would like. i recently had a debate with mehrban on the same matter. in my view, the push for secularism should come last (third) in the list, that should be topped by 'human rights' followed by 'democracy'. the reason is tactical: a push for secularism is equivalent to 'regime change', equivalent to revolutionary change (not necessarily a violent one). in the current climate, regime change cannot be considered as a viable option as it is likely to involve war and perhaps a break-up of the country.

we are not quite past PNAC yet. once we are secure about iran's stability and peace (hopefully doable during obama's term), then the push for secularism will be far more practical. and you will see iranians taking a lead on the issue rather than wait for us exiles to 'lead'. just my opinion.


Niloufar Parsi


by Niloufar Parsi on

just yesterday over 60 people died in iraq from bombings. how many peole in iran have been killed by the regime since the troubles started last year? where is the 'mass murder'? please tell me so i can come back to the 'real world'.

ps pls don't lecture me about 'even 1 is too many'. we all know that. 

Niloufar Parsi


by Niloufar Parsi on

so well said. totally agree with you. i know this has been your line all along. kharmagas just pays no attention! that's why i call him "la'nati"! ;)

Niloufar Parsi


by Niloufar Parsi on

you talk as if there is a whole nation being strangled by a murdering gang called 'the regime'. do you think this is a true picture? what i see, rather, is class conflict. the great majority, constituting the lower income groups, align themselves with an islamic ideology. the more wealthy align themselves with a more 'modernist' ideology. there are many shades of grey in between. i fit more into the modernist camp, but my problem with it is that a faction within this camp is increasingly aligned with anti-iranian forces that have no agenda other than to weaken the country. if that makes me an apologist in your view, then so be it.

Niloufar Parsi


by Niloufar Parsi on

setting aside the crucial issue of basiji hair that is obviously close to your heart, it is quite ironic that you just don't see how far removed from reality your stated positions are. 

north versus south korea is an autarky versus open trade issue. open trade wins any day. you also don't seem to realise that both countries - formerly united - lost a half of their land because of another foreign intervention.  with it, families and binds were broken, and the danger of war continues till today. most importantly, korea is not iran.

you continue to locate your discourse from the position of what 'would' happen in 'a free democratic iran'. and then ask me 'why not hold a referndum?' and then you go even further into the rabbit's hole and ask whether i am 'afraid of the outcome?'. then you finish the act by calling me 'moozi'.

jamshid, come back to earth. iran is not free or democratic or fascist or murderous (not the way you would claim anyhow). what has a referendum got to do with me or what i am talking about here? why would i be afraid of any referendum or its outcome? as for 'moozi', we will leave that additional gem among your pile of pearls of wisdom for all to see.

back in the real world, we have a country called iran with an islamic republic/regime. this country has for far too long been isolated and demonized with no positive outcome for the people. the events of the past year or so have shown that iranians desire reform, but not revolution. they realise that foreign plots are designed to bring instability and mayhem to iran. iranians who really want to make a positive difference will stand by their own people in the face of foreign threats, but will continue to engage in reform activities without treating their own government as the 'enemy' especially in the current global climate.

this, in my view, is what a real caring and strategic opposition activist would do. you and samsam are totally entitled to live in a different universe, but don't get too upset when i tell you that you are basically irrelevant to what is going on. you with your pontifications about what a free democratic iran would be like, and samsam with his far-fetched claims about a country that never really was, depicted through fictitious cartoons and imagery glorifying outdated machismo and vague ideals of little obvious value. 


Fouzul Bashi

Dear David ET - use of technology

by Fouzul Bashi on

You made the point I was getting at! You point to a number of areas from construction, to internet, to media, to medical, etc technology as examples of the ways in which they are abused by Iranian regime.  The logical conclusion is that in your view, under the Islamic Republic (or other regimes not to your liking), Iran cannot be trusted with any technological advancement!!!  

Having said that, you stopped at giving a single example in which Israel or the US and their allies, use technology for sinister inhumane and brutal purposes.  Where in reality, the brutal use of technology by Israel, the US and their allies are on an incomparably huge and genocidal scale!!!  

Who introduced the advanced surveillance and torture methods and instruments to Iran and sold deadly weapons to Latin American dictatorships?  Israeli Shabak under the Shah, and Israel!

Who is the first and only perpetrator of an atomic holocaust? The US.

Who is using construction technology to destroy Palestinian olive groves and crush their home over their heads, and build colonial settlements?  Israel.

Who used unextinguishable phosphorous bombs that burnt through flesh and bones of Palestinian civilians last Christmas?  Papa Noel, or Israel?

The list and applications are numerous.  This was just a test of your integrity.   


To some people here "the West" is limited to the US frontiers

by Rea on

If anything, it shows their own ignorance.