Introducing The Angel Of Death

Crowds of people have congregated as if in anticipation of experiencing a miraculous religious vision - but instead a grotesque dead chicken lies slumped across the cliff-top in front of them. The crowd's inability to recognize the inanity of the object they are venerating, emphasized the futility of their mission.
"Chihuahua" by David Alfaro Siqueiros 1947, Museo de Arte Alvar y Carmen T de Carillo, Mexico City

 

Mohammad-Ali Ramin's looks are deceptive.

He's good looking with his soft, well manicured beard. His looks are either German or Scandinavian, blue eyes, light hair. Nothing threatening, charming smile; you'd invite him to your dinner party without a moments hesitation. Well almost....

Little would you know that you'd be wining and dining the very reincarnation of Heinrich Himmler, Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Eichmann, Dr Josef Mengele dubbed 'Angel of Death', you name it, take your pick, improved only in looks and finesse. Pure, unabashed, soft-spoken evil. Measured in tone, deliberate and utterly confident in everything he says. He's not a psychopath, but someone who is absolutely convinced to occupy the moral high ground, certain of his convictions being sanctioned by Allah himself.

In response to Russian President Putin's remark, "..we have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the whole world 7 times over, but [we] do not talk like Iranian leaders do, so why do [they]?", he says:

"[We have] just woken up after 16 years of forgetting God. [...] Only 11 countries in the world [are] against Iran whereas there [are] some 150 states supporting Iran."

“We will acquire this [nuclear] technology and export it to all the 150 countries,” he threatened, adding that “this is the power we have not yet used”.

Ramin claimed that Ahmadi Nezhad's presidency [that's how 'Thug-in-Chief' Ahmadinejad is affectionately called by his close friends and admireres] had created a new global wave and that many world leaders had lined up to speak with him. He also stressed that Europe and the US were entirely incapable of threatening Iran.

Who is Mohammad-Ali Ramin and why should we pay very close attention to what he has to say?

He is what Joseph Goebbels was to Hitler. He is the brain behind "Thug-In-Chief" Ahmadinejad, his hardline presidential advisor.

He is the editor-in-chief of Emamat monthly, a founder of the Association of the Islamic Path in Europe, and director of the Holocaust seminar in Tehran.

Like Ahmadinejad, he too is a member of the Shi'a branch of Islam, that rejects the first three Sunni caliphs and regards Ali, the fourth caliph, as Muhammad's first true successor.

He is Ahmadinejad's architect of the Caliphat, charged with the careful planning and realization of the global Dar-al-Islam, the time when Islam has subjugated the whole world, the time when Islam will be 'tolerant' for there will be none left to oppose or differ.

Born 1954, it is an eerie irony, that he was brought up and educated in the 'Vaterland' ; only after  completing his major in Mechanical Engineering and after founding the "Islamische Gemeinschaft in Clausthal e.V." (Clausthal is an hour's drive from Hannover, Germany) as well as other unspecified 'political activism', did he move his wife and three children back to his native home, the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Apart from bringing about the global Dar-al-Islam, his passion and academic work is dedicated to the revision of the Holocaust 'Myth'. Ramin was the one who initiated the idea of the "relocation of Israel" and also the idea, that "Holocaust is a myth". Ahmadinejad was just the messenger.

He himself accepted the full responsibility of this action. In an interview with the Financial Times (German version), Ramin stated that he has also initiated the "Holocaust commission" and that he is the founder of the Conference on Holocaust in Tehran.

His logic is as simple as it is evil: Should his committee determine that indeed 6 million Jews had been killed by the Nazis, then another committee must be assembled and determine a just punishment for Germany, which, oh quelle surprise, must include the transfer of German territory so as to establish a Jewish State.

Should it however establish, that Holocaust was a 'Myth', Ramin would have successfully vilified the Jews and exonerated the Nazis. He would then hope to re-open the debate questioning the legality of the State of Israel and bring him one step closer to return Israel's territories to Arab rule. Destruction of Israel is only the last resort option. Much preferred is to usurp Israel 'peacefully', and hand control over to Arab leaders. I wonder what he'd call the new nation...

Having first coached his eager pupil Ahmadinejad, Ramin later praised the President for having voiced his doubts over the Holocaust and the need for relocating the Jews to Europe if Europeans really did the massacre during the Second World War. Ramin then suggested publicly that Ahmadinejad establish a committee for clarifying the "real extent" of the Holocaust.

To those, who criticize Ramin and his government's position on denying the Holocaust, and the serial murders of Iranian intellectuals by the Ministry of Intelligence, he responds:

"The Islamic Revolution has already shaken the world and [...] the unexpected epidemics such as the Asian Flu and AIDS [are] emerging [...] The world [is] too envious to witness the success of Iran’s young generation."

To all of you, who reflexively dismiss these clearly stated goals as hype and hysteria, I say, it is with historical curiosity and fascination, that I appreciate your stance, for it allows me to time-travel some 70-75 years into the past and experience first hand what it must have been like for those, who saw the writing on the wall.

I am much more concerned about Ramin than about 'Thug-in-Chief' Ahmadinejad. After all, thanks to the President's forthrightness, Iran has managed to mobilize the whole world against itself in just 6 months.

Mohammad-Ali Ramin appears moderate, calm and reasonable. Yet his views are the same that led without fail to the biggest atrocities and genocidal crimes committed by man-kind. My translation of a short passage from a German interview in June 2004, well before the election of extremist Ahmadinejad, shows why this soft-spoken ideology always ends in disaster:

"We have never claimed to be a democratic system fashioned after the Western model, nor that we even seek to establish one. We don't believe that Western democracies are the ideal governing system, but believe that other people ["Völker"] with different cultures are able to establish better systems which are truly governed by the people and much more humane ["menschlicher"]. We don't want a system where people like George Bush can be elected as their leader, but instead want a system where the selection is ensured by reasonable and wise individuals."

UPDATE: Quite the operator our Ramin--so much for trustworthiness and credibility. Read his indignant assurances made a few months before Ahmadinejad's kindly informed us of Ramin's true intentions. What a stark difference to, “We will acquire this [nuclear] technology and export it to all the 150 countries,” he threatened, adding that “this is the power we have not yet used”.

Comments

[Don]

Excellent writing, with great insight. I'm sure the liberals fully endorse this.

Don at Liberally Conservative

[brian]

"In the real battle of principal...what will the west bring to that battle?"

A question better left to Iraqis themselves to answer. Take the mayor of Tall’Afar, Najim Abdullah Abid al-Jibouri:

“To the families of those who have given their holy blood for our land, we all bow to you in reverence and to the souls of your loved ones. Their sacrifice was not in vain. They are not dead, but alive, and their souls hovering around us every second of every minute. They will never be forgotten for giving their precious lives. They have sacrificed that which is most valuable. We see them in the smile of every child, and in every flower growing in this land. Let America, their families, and the world be proud of their sacrifice for humanity and life.”

Hearts and minds, too are a battlefield. We won that one.

[brian]

That would only be in response to a cross-border incursion. The strategic counterstrike would be the invisible B-2 Spirit, a lovely example of jihad-denial engineering. Undetectable by the Soviet-era air defense radar net, capable of deep penetration, precision strikes. They wouldn't know what hit them, and hit them it would. Hard. Man, I love the military-industrial complex! Isn't it great! The best part is, they return to base, refuel,rearm and do it all over again, which is hard for suicide bombers to pull off. Then there is the little matter of the most lethal ground force in the world, who totally outclass the Iranian Revolutionary Gaurds. The mullahs don't want none, I suspect. Just cowardly splodeydopes sneaking around children with their martyr-vests.

[Liquid]

Alexander, my hat is off to you for sharing this. Keep up the good work girly! I hope more and more get educated on what we are all up against! I just get amazed each day at how so many are just now getting introduced to the evils behind this regime and when there is a face put to the evil it's like "awwwwww so there is this political/religious agenda behind this madness after all!"

So many people refuse to understand that with the "political islamist" marching forward on a mission, bullying who they may on the way, there is also a growing ideology and philosophy that is not going to separate it's political movement from it's "religion" and the goal is to get more and more muslim countries to adopt this on a political scale. It's a call of unification. There is a goal they are trying to ultimately achieve! Don't anyone kid yourself on that one! Until we in the west understand that, we will not get any closer on how to survive it's infilteration force!

IMHO, There are many out there that don't understand the "democracy" in the middle east effort at all, and if one looks at the bigger picture, one can begin to understand that in the long run one must fight political ideology with political ideology. The hope is to give those in the middle east, that want freedoms, a chance to exercise it! There are many over there that want reform and want a chance to fly from the cage of oppression! What we see in this regime is the very political/religious manipulation that they have been living daily under. We are just seeing it more closely on a global scale as it gets more drunk with power! What it does to it's own people it wants to achieve to all! Democracy will be a tool to fight the political ideology that has mixed it's "religion" for expansion, like the one hell bent on chaos in Iran! It won't happen overnight, but in the long run, maybe something will stick and maybe something will grow! Until then, politicians around the world have to play political chess with these minds that want to hold the world hostage on every level that they have access to. It is no suprise that the regime in Iran is acting like a spoiled child demanding this or that! Nothing is going to stop their desire to march on into the creation of their Islamic 'state' of mind because in their hearts it's self indulging to dream they are paving the way for the madhi! Now you can't pull something like that out of the heart of a man that has platformed himself into that delusion with the help of those around him, but you can fight back on his political tactics. Of course this type of man/men will continue to address any political attacks as attacks on his/their "religious convictions" because it's part of their denial which they cleverly hide behind and part of the reason that they will NOT separate the two! It gives them some justification power and excuse to do their undermining of freedom and at the same time call it Allah's will! They are not shy to call it what it is either...their only honesty is naming their god! In the real battle of principal...what will the west bring to that battle?

[DavidByron]

Let me quote a few words from the Amazon reviewers about the book (I haven't read it myself, although the reaction from some folks here makes me think it might be worth a look):

Readers, too, will be surprised to learn, that after the Nuremberg Anti-Jewish Race Laws were enacted in Sept., 1935, that there were only two flags that were permitted to be displayed in all of Nazi Germany. One was Hitler's favorite, the Swastika. The other was the blue and white banner of Zionism. The Zionists were also allowed to publish their own newspaper. The reasons for this Reich-sponsored favoritism was, according to the author: The Zionists and the Nazis had a common interest, making German Jews emigrate to Palestine.

And how about this?

Incredibly, Avraham Stern, the leader of the notorious "Stern Gang," late in 1940, made a written proposal to Hitler, by which the Jewish militias in Palestine, would fight on "Germany's side," in the war against England, in exchange for the Nazis help in resolving the "Jewish Question" in Europe, and their assistance in creating an "historic Jewish state." By this date, German troops had already marched into Prague, invaded Poland, and had built the first concentration camp at Auschwitz. The deranged Stern had further bragged about how the Zionist organizations were "closely related to the totalitarian movements of Europe in [their] ideology and structure." Stern's obscene proposal was found in the German embassy, in Turkey, after WWII.

And it seems the admiration was mutual:

An important Nazi document succinctly expresses the underlying idea for the Zionist-Nazi connection. It is a 1937 report on Eichmann's 1937 trip to Palestine and Egypt. The Nazi writer found that "In Jewish nationalist circles people were very pleased with the radical German policy since the strength of the Jewish population in Palestine would be so far increased thereby that in the foreseeable future the Jews could reckon upon numerical superiority of the Arabs in Palestine."

Shall I chase up some other quotes from the early Zionist leaders concerning the "final solution" to their Palestinian problem?

I smell desperation.

You are citing the Marxist Lenni Brenner??????????????? OH!

As the name implies most of the book is just one historical document after another with a small amount of commentary and introduction. Now let me see. You were going to produce evidence that the Palestinians were nazis weren't you?

[epaminondas]

I totally categorically reject that some 'crime' has been committed against the arabs who are near israel, who since 1967 claimed the name palestinian.

Anyone who is intimately familiar with the FULL history understands that it was the immigration of jewish POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC refugees who PURCHASED the land from arab owners, and CREATED A MODERN ECONOMY, with MODERN HEALTH FACLITIES which brought the demand for labor that caused an influx of arabs. During that time there were innumerable arab instigated riots and murders beginning with Abu Musa in 1919,20 when Arab children were invited to be educated side by side with jews.

Were arabs intimidated off land in 1947-48? You bet, but so were jews, who took in more refugees than the arabs had from 1947-1951 (who were stripped of property en masse). The rest of that history thru today is a sad parade of outright rejectionism by those who could have had peace at any time they were ready to renounce wars of annihilation (Nasser's words, btw). This desire for the death of Israel and THE JEWS is validated by the vote of the palestinians in a free and fair election. That jews have been by FAR the most oppressed, pogrommed, killed, etc people in history is beyond any sort of doubt or question. This is so specifically because they had no nation and therefore no army or any other means of organized self defense frmo before Herod until 1948, some 2000 years. That this oldest racism still not only exists but is progressing is proof of several things ..the Holocaust was just an EPISODE in this sorry history, and is remarkable only for the marriage of racism to a nation's industrial might, and that jews around the world are not disliked for what Israel does, but rather Israel is disliked because it is full of jews.

That there are thos who would deny them the defense of a national army in a homeland bespeaks (as Martin Luther King recogized) a functional desire to see them returned that same state which saw them driven from so many lands, treated as dhimmis or non citizens, and made easy targets for what the world has so clearly seen. That is the way it is.

Any time you want to go on the facts. Let me know.

Want some grist for the state of the palestinians? They have been and are today the worst lead people in the last 100 years.

That you MR Byron credit this racist thug with any peacful notions make you either dangerously naieve, an Arthur Butz, Kevin Mcdonald clone, or totally uninformed.

That you see any comparison between a UNITED NATIONS set of enforced sanctions (right or wrong), which BTW might have saved more kurds than iraqis died, ended any time Saddam CHOSE, and the strategic and tactical decision of an industrialzed 1st world state to mass produce death based on religion of a group is to think a car accident is the same as the KKK lynching away because people have died.

Unbelievable !

You have lost any sense of perspective in your visceral hatred. One is forced to wonder WHY.

And btw .. just in case you want to 'type' me ..I'm a registered democrat.

[Michael (van der) Galien]

I want to step in once again.

Here is the deal. Debates should not be about 'persons' or characters. Actually, to attack a 'person' or 'character' in a debate is a sign of utter weakness. It simply implies one feels frustrated and defeated. Never get personal when one is debating another person.
Name calling, such as 'troll' or 'you're just an anti-semite' or whatever, is a sign of weakness. If you all are so confident everything David Byron says is nonsense; you should be able to make that clear without attacking his person.

Washington says:
"However, many will avoid that corner and I fear Saul might avoid the debate because of the inciteful rhetoric and the lack of David offering any validity for his comments.

My view is different-As long as he comments I am going to listen and respond...otherwise he wins. I would never avoid this blog because of David. I have too much respect for Alexandra"

You seem to be implying that Alexandra will loose readers due to people like Byron. Sure there are some people who do not like a blog to have an actual debate, but on the other hand, it will attract people from both sides. Why? Because intelligent bloggers like a healthy debate, even with people who they clearly disagree with. The best blogs with the best comment sections have people with extreme views from both sides.

About the actual topic:
We should recognize the fact that people like that person Alexandra wrote about, do indeed, exist. Besides that they do not simply 'exist' but some of them have (a lot of) power. Those people should be dealt with immediately once they do anything that crosses the line (law).
The difficulty is that even people like this muslim Goebbels have a right to express their views.
They should be dealt with, however, very agressively: We, who disagree with him, should make clear time and time again that people like him are extremely dangerous. Some sort of 'debate-propaganda' should be used. Make clear what kind of hatred that person possesses time and time again, that everything he says is a lie, andsoforth.

Once people like him are in power, it means that once they do anything to jeapordize the security of the region / Israel, we need to step in immediately.

[brian]

Formations of Iranian military crossing the border into Iraq would be the dream scenario for the USAF. What a big, fat target! No hiding in towns, no human shields, just a straight up fight with the most devastating armed force in the history of the world. They would be destroyed utterly, completely and without mercy. That is what we are best at, locating, tracking, and engaging military formations in the battlefield. Given the alternative of terrorist infiltration and civilians being drug into the crossfire, this would be a tremendous development. In fact I dare Iran to try this. But perhaps the mullahs were watching the Highway of Death episode in the first Gulf War. A-10 Thunderbolts, AH-64 Apaches, F-16s, B-52s, a whithering combined arms display of might that the Iranians coud not possibly withstand. That is the best of outcomes.

[North by Northwest]

Brian,

You are right. We hold front row seats in this unfolding drama.

I find Ramin's most chilling statement, "[we] want a system where the selection is ensured by reasonable and wise individuals."

Alexandra is so right to point out that this 'system' has always lead to the worst kind of abuse of power, inevitably disenfranchising any opposition. And given the propensity of Islamist fundamentalists to silence their opponents by violent means, read, murder, torture and rape, Iranians' opposition and the world at large better watch out and fasten their seatbelts.

[Washington]

Brian:

I agree that we must work to cripple Iran's government, by force if neccessary. However, the Air Force is not capable of delivering all of the neccessary blows as you indicate. There are factors at play that limit the role of an air campaign over Iran - airpower cannot cripple them so much as it can cause damage. We must be prepared to respond to a counterstrike by their, roughly, four corps of troops. If we try the air only route a possibility exists that Iran comes across the border into Iraq, placing our forces there under intense strain. This is, I am sure, being worked out.

[North by Northwest]

David,

Saul Davis, checkout this book, on Zionist - Nazi collaboration.

As I said, anti-Semitic propaganda. And even if the documents referred to in this book are authentic, it says nothing about the legality upon which the State of Israel was founded. All it does, is to confirm, that every people have sick, deranged and evil members amongst their midst. Nothing new; Vichy France, the right-wing government led by Henri-Philippe Petain is just another example.

[brian]

Alexandra is right again. I did not know of this man, and he should be widely known to all in the free world. This problem is going to get much worse, I'm afraid. The only way it's going to get solved is military intervention. Diplomacy hasn't worked so far, and the prospects for a breakthrough seem bleak, indeed. I think a reminder may be in order of just who these people are trifling with. The U.S. Air Force is well equipped to cripple this regime with a sustained and precise campaign, but what then? That is really a troublesome question. I wish the people of Iran could shake off these beastly mullahs and join the modern world. Most of them want to do just that, but the grip of the mullahs is still too tight, I think. The world holds it's breath.

[Washington]

Mr. Byron:

You are citing the Marxist Lenni Brenner??????????????? OH! That is a treat-so he is an example of the history you read. Now it all becomes apparent.

We are safe in assuming that Mr. Byron is not the thoughful intellect he posits himself to be. He reads and quotes hatred as fact.

[North by Northwest]

And David, don't now bother to tell me that you don't care for whether or not Israel is acting with restraint, and proceed to lecture me that in your opinion the crime Israel is supposed to have committed lies in its illegal occupation of 'Palestinian' territories in the first place.

It has been shown to you beyond any credible doubt, that this is not a historical fact. It is impossible for anyone, who is free of any ulterior motive, but willing to conduct thorough and unbiased research, to arrive at any other conclusion. The rest is just anti-Semitic propaganda.

[DavidByron]

Michael: could you explain this?

Sure. I'm anti-Israel in the obvious sense that I have presented here but my opinions are based on broadly applicable principles not some bias against the state of Israel. In the 2nd statement I was merely emphasising those principles. Like calling yourself "pro-choice" instead of "pro-abortion".

David:And then, since there's "no space" to actually defend his lies he proceeds to blow smoke for another three paragraphs

I had hoped that my record here for going on and on ad nauseam and generally trying to respond to criticism about the issues would mean I wouldn't get this reaction. I really don't think it's fair to suggest I am running away from an argument.

NNW:
Well what did you mean when you said, "To isolate Israel in that respect" if you didn't mean that Israel was guilty, along with many others, of the crime of aggression? And if Israel didn't attack Palestine ever then how would you explain Israeli tanks on Palestinian streets? How do you explain that Israel now lays claim to what used to be Palestinian land? How do you explain every history book that says Israel took the land it occupies by force?

Saul Davis, checkout this book, on Zionist - Nazi collaboration.

[Washington]

Michael:

You are correct-Mr. Byron has a right to state his opinions. I called him a name some time back and apologized. In fact that word has been used again, here, in this thread. It is wrong to call him that name for it is below the belt.

He does not respond to calls for sources. We are to take his word as supreme. His word is law, or at least that is how he comes off. He has erred terribly in this debate by revealing much about himself by what he states and doesn't state.

However, his comments are always over the top and very vindictive. He does not debate as much as he spews. He has said he was anti-Israeli and then he is not-he can't keep up with his own hatred. That is what it really boils down to-hatred. I a man on the corner is spewing hatred we let him speak-to prevent him would be unwise. However, many will avoid that corner and I fear Saul might avoid the debate because of the inciteful rhetoric and the lack of David offering any validity for his comments.

My view is different-As long as he comments I am going to listen and respond...otherwise he wins. I would never avoid this blog because of David. I have too much respect for Alexandra.

Mr. Byron has revealed himself...in a manner of speaking.

[Saul Davis]

Getting back to the original thread -- the article published by Alexandra -- why should the perception that Mohammad-Ali Ramin reminds one of Goebbels come as a surprise; the Islamisst Arabs in the Middle East (recognizing that Persians/Iranians are not Arabs -- but those in power are Islamists) have had a particular affinity for Nazis; the Grand Mufti was an avowed and public admirer of Hitler and his policies; he had to flee from the British Mandate because of those positions; he was warmly welcomed by the Nazis in Germany; he made public appearances in Germany espousing the Nazi cause; if I remember correctly, he even suppported or was part of the Muslim leaders who caused the organization of the Bosnian Muslims into a special SS brigade; they joined the SS and fought along with the Nazis -- I believe they had a special brigade within the SS.

[North by Northwest]

Bullshit, David,

Don't put words into my mouth and stop distorting and misrepresenting in your desperate effort to further your sick agenda:

What makes your assertions all the more misplaced, is that the object of your scorn, the Jewish people and specifically the State of Israel, ought to be singled out for its unprecedented restraint, which is in fact the single reason why people like you have anything to bitch about.

Compared to an overwhelming majority of previous and contemporary geopolitical struggles, involving at one point or another every nation or people in history, many of which you yourself referred to, Israel is the glaring exception in as much as it did NOT opt for the historically far more effective and far more prevalent solution, namely to swiftly squash any remnants of the previous population should they refuse to assimilate into the new 'realities'.

Had Israel acted in that way, after possible a short period of protest, if any, day-to-day business would long have normalized with the international community first accepting the new status quo and in absence of any further incidents, eventually completely forgetting all about it. That is the historical reality in the annals of virtually every nation on the face of this earth.

I am telling you that Israel is not the aggressor but the most restraint nation in the face of continuous attacks all round.

[Kyda Sylvester]

DavidByron apologizes for his typos when he should apologize for his empty rhetorical flourishes.

[David]

David Byron says, of his lies in his forst comment, "There's no space for that so I won't defend the facts I mentioned at this time. It's too broad."

And then, since there's "no space" to actually defend his lies he proceeds to blow smoke for another three paragraphs, some 150 words tacked onto the 600 or so already posted by him, without offering any defense of his previous lies.

In short, his statement that "There's no space for that [defense of his indefensible lies]" is itself yet another lie.

Typical. And common for his class oc polemicist: no lie is too blatant. Trumpeting lies loudly and long is altegue such as Byron have in their arsenal. Defense of his lies with facts is simply not a consideration for such as he, apparently. Just keep spouting them until the lies take on lives of their own, as he and his fellow travelers long ago learned.

Starting now, may I make a suggestion? Unless responding to this troll serves to amuse you (verbal pounding of liars, fools and useful idiots can be fun, I admit), simply ignore him and address the genuine content of Alexandra's posts and the comments of people who have something to say other than lies.

[DavidByron]

NNW:
You appear to now agree that the Israeli leaders commited a terrible crime against the Palestinians. That is progress I think. Good. Now what you further argue is that we shouldn't care too much. Here I must disagree.

People, fiefdoms, kingdoms, empires, nations, you name it, attacked and occupied other ... territories since the dawn of time... To isolate Israel in that respect is simply unreasonable

But you know what? This difference between us isn't a big deal to me. I don't think I am isolating Israel or treating their crimes any worse than others. If you want to raise the issue of some other crimes along the lines of the criminal occupation by Israel then you might find I agree with you completely. I am not sure if you want to do that. I don't particularly want to do that.

The important thing is we agree that the Israeli occupation is one such crime.

Washington,
has [DavidByron] spoken about the Berbers in Algeria? ... He will swing the conversation time and again back to Bush.

Was I supposed to be discussing the Berbers instead of America? Who knew! This blog mainly discusses, it seems to me, America and after that Iraq, Iran, Israel, Serbia and questions about religion Christian and Muslim. At any rate I have also criticised Democrat presidents quite alot.

Yeah, yeah the "monopolise" comment was tonue-in-cheek.

[Michael (van der) Galien]

The wonderful world of 'lets burn everyone who disagrees': Lets stop with the personal attacks on Byron. He has views I do not agree with on many occasions, but lets give him the room / right to say what he wants to say (I also don't agree with what quite a lot of 'you' say by the way).

That being said, one question for mr. Byron:
You said in this thread "I'm not anti-Israel, I am pro-justice and morality"

But in another thread you said:
"Well speaking as someone who is "anti-Israel" I don't care for arguments based on supposed pragmatism. Israel should be opposed on moral grounds. If I thought Israel should be supported on moral grounds I wouldn't have a problem with funding them"

could you explain this?

[Alexandra]

C,

Yes you are right, I actually had something else written there which I had deleted and not corresponded properly. Thanks for the lesson though I obviously know that, as you might gather from dozens of other posts I have written on the subject.

[Saul Davis]

PS: My apologies, I forgot to mention that the article is wonderful; thank you again.

[Saul Davis]

I would invite North by Northwest and the other commenters here to my last two responses to "David Byron's" (I wonder if that is his real name) posts to yesterdays article; he has never cited any evidence and simply spouts virulent Arab propaganda; why even respond to his rantings; they do not make sense; if no one responds, then we can concentrate on the wonderful articles published on this weblog;

I agree with -C that Ahmadinejad is a Shi'a; there may be a question if any Sunni, let alone a Wahabbi, could rise to any position of significance in Iran.

[Washington]

Mr. Byron cleverly sidesteps the issue...or so he thinks. When has he failed to monopolize a thread? Now??? He understands how he sounds despite his protests to the contrary.

He wants justice. So he views himself as someone who must defend the oppressed. Yet, have you noticed who his oppressed people are? Do you note that he tends only to side with certain groups. How he fails to talk about any Jews who are oppressed -no Christians - has he spoken about the Berbers in Algeria? No. Mr. Byron states all we need to know by WHAT HE DOES NOT STATE.

He will swing the conversation time and again back to Bush. He is pure partisan though he likes to make us think he plays the devils advocate - critical thinking and such. Mr. Byron has exposed his flanks.

[-C]

Nice article, but...

Ahmadinejad is a Shi'a, not a Sunni. And he is most certainly not a Wahhabist. There is no way the supreme council would allow a wahhabist to run for dogcatcher, let alone president.

[North by Northwest]

David,

What you write is so outrageous and biased that I am not sure how to address it in any other way than to point out the most obvious of facts.

You are attempting to blind with utterly contrieved historical 'science'. Your analogies and purported reason are abstract, misleading in their isolation and as such disingenuous in the extreme. The biggest mistake is to stoop to your base level and attempt to argue with you on these abstract terms.

You are too intelligent not to pursue an agenda. But I won't speculate. Frankly I don't care. Furthermore, I don't believe that anything will change your mind, as it is clear to me that you are out to change the mind of others for whatever malevolent reason.

I will address your spin one more time, but in the way as it should have been addressed right from the start.

People, fiefdoms, kingdoms, empires, nations, you name it, attacked and occupied other peoples', fiefdoms', kingdoms', empires', nations', you name it, territories since the dawn of time--and prior to that, fought over territories ever since the creation of this earth, with all of natures creatures continuing to do so day-in-day-out.

To isolate Israel in that respect is simply unreasonable and in your sought conclusions, despicable for it artificially singles out one people from all others who have been and continue to display this most human of all traits. You are in that sense quite simply a racist and a rabid anti-Semite.

What makes your assertions all the more misplaced, is that the object of your scorn, the Jewish people and specifically the State of Israel, ought to be singled out for its unprecedented restraint, which is in fact the single reason why people like you have anything to bitch about.

Compared to an overwhelming majority of previous and contemporary geopolitical struggles, involving at one point or another every nation or people in history, many of which you yourself referred to, Israel is the glaring exception in as much as it did NOT opt for the historically far more effective and far more prevalent solution, namely to swiftly squash any remnants of the previous population should they refuse to assimilate into the new 'realities'.

Had Israel acted in that way, after possible a short period of protest, if any, day-to-day business would long have normalized with the international community first accepting the new status quo and in absence of any further incidents, eventually completely forgetting all about it. That is the historical reality in the annals of virtually every nation on the face of this earth.

Israel's trouble and the reason for the continued criticism it faces, lies precisely and most ironically in its attempt to only pin-point target its adversaries; something, which is consistent with its cultural heritage.

Of all the people in the world, name me a people who have like the Jews throughout history equally managed to consistently coexist with their hosts peacefully--in every nation, it always were the hosts who at one point or another turned on the Jews, who at that stage usually had managed to prosper and become highly productive contributors to their adopted societies.

Name me a single violent uprising started by Jews in any of their adopted nations where they sought to topple the existing government, rulers or whatever else, in the past 2,000 years; you won't find any.

Despite any restrictions imposed on the Jewish people in Europe of old, they managed not only to survive but purely through their culturally ingrained hatred of violence and love for learning managed to excel in whatever field left for them to pursue.

I say to you in the words of Jack Nicholson in "As Good As It Gets": "Where do they teach you to talk like this? In some Panama City "Sailor wanna hump-hump" bar, or is it getaway day and your last shot at his whiskey? Sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here."

[DavidByron]

I'm not anti-Israel, I am pro-justice and morality. Anti-aggression and bullying. As for hating Jews I don't hate people I've never met on the basis of the circumstances of their birth whether Jewish or gay or Arab or whatever else. I don't make a habit of hating people for other reasons either.
-----------------------------------

You know what I said above could easily cause an over-reaction and have us arguing about everything under the sun at once. There's no space for that so I won't defend the facts I mentioned at this time. It's too broad.

I suggest that instead of that consider my words to be a viewpoint or a perspective of how many in the world see America. The sentiments Alexandra expresses about Iran are the same sentiments, backed with the factoids I mentioned among others, that others have when they think about America's actions in recent years.

If you want to argue that nobody really does see America that way then I'll respond to that, but I won't be defending the factoids per se at this time, ok? I hope you all know I'm good for a fight usually and don't interpret this as me backing down. I just don't want to totally monopolise another thread. Besides some of these issues are already being discussed elsewhere.

How do others see America? A lot like some Americans see Iran. Agressive, dangerous, run by an insane president and a bunch of religious whack-jobs. That's the perspective.

[Edd]

Mr. Bryon is worse than an anti-Semite is or anti-Israeli although I would appreciate a straightforward answer of yes or no to the question. He appears as a limousine liberal or worse yet an advocate for the delusional appeasement of the West ignorant of Islam’s stunning desire for a plant wide Apocalypse.

[Sigmund, Carl And Alfred]

Mr Byron, you say that "Bush created a fake issue of Iraq's WMDs and links to terrorism."

Do you have evidence of that, or is that made up like the other stuff you present as definative?

[M. Simon]

Reinhard Heydrich is the German you are looking for.

It was said that he was a sensitive soul who played the violin well.

[Washington]

Mr. Byron:

Are you an anti-Semite? I am not saying that you are-and don't play the semantics game because you know what I mean - just answer the question? Or, are you just anti-Israeli?

[DavidByron]

Sorry about all those typos :(

[DavidByron]

If he was in the Bush administration he'd be a moderate. Or perhaps not. Perhaps he just sounds so moderate because Iran doesn't have the power to invade countries in the way America does. At any rate his statements are moderate compared to the present day Republican party as ruled by King George.

This guy talks about peacefully ending the Israeli occupation. Through diplomacy you know. Like Bush talked about peaceful means. We know Bush was lying. Is this guy? We don't know because thankfully he hasn't had the opportunity to use military means as Bush has.

Bush created a fake issue of Iraq's WMDs and links to terrorism. This guy is using the very real and just cause of Israeli occupation -- which regardless of how Americans see it is considered one of the most pressing moral issues in the middle east by most of the people who live there. So he has a just cause, whereas Bush just made up a cause. Bush obviously wasn't sincere about his reasons. Is this man sincere? Is he really interested in reversing a decades long injustice?

Again from the way he talks the implication is that he'd want to ethnically cleanse the Jews from Palestine. As if two wrongs make a right. These people immigrated in good faith and made their homes in a new land. They are not the same criminals who attacked and killed so many Palestinians. Is this man for justice or revenge? Again in the case of Bush we know he has no interest in justice because of his actions. This oter guy I don't know because he hasn't acted.

Holocaust denial? That seems no worse than Bush's denial of the deaths of a hlaf million Iraqis under his war. After all the Iranians didn't kill the Jews themselves. But in both cases the lies just create cover for political motivations. A conspiracy theory about the Holocause, or the ridiculoous conspiracy theories about how Iraq really had WMDs but they were magiced away to wherever Bush wants to invade next....

I doubt I have tom emphasise the similarity between these two men in terms of religious pretentions? Both publicly commited to a fundamentalist and violent extremism for policial reasons, although it's doubtful either one sincerely holds to the faith.

The only difference between them that counts is that the crimes the Iranians might imagine commiting are the crimes George Bush has commited. Are they as evil as Bush? We won't know unless they go to war and that seems unlikely because only one country in the world carelessly attacks other countries these days and it isn't Iran.

So we have to guess what they mean but my guess is that this guy would fit right in at the White House with only a quick change of label from "muslim" to "christian" and a quick change from "Israeli occupation!" to "9-11, terrorism!"

[Raimondo]

It's amazing that these people exist unpunished. Most of us don't even get away with going ten miles over the speed limit and this monster thrives with impunity...

I'm just waiting to see Saint Jimmy Carter of Georgia go over and embrace this great human specimen...maybe he can tell the world how great guys like him are, how just like the rest of us they are...If they appear evil, they're either misundrestood, or else it's our fault.

Remember, regardless of the evil..it's all Bush's fault!

[Michael (van der) Galien]

It is obvious that these people are evil and that we should do everyting in our power to stop them.

Besides that: We should not act as if every Muslim is like this man.