View Full Version : Ahmadinejad peaceful & safe for the world 5 years later


Catya Sher
08-21-2011, 10:57 PM
This was a Newsweek article from 2007 by the bought and sold Bilderberger writer Fareed Zakaria.
If even HE could see the obvious truth,
then why are so many still warmongering to attack Iran?
After all, that's the Bilderberger prime objective
at least up to a few years ago.
Hopefully they dumped that idea by now...

August 22, tomorrow, will the anniversary of the day that
Bernard Lewis, billed as El Supreme Islamic Know-it-All
of American academia,
predicted that Ahmadinejad would "end the world"
in a - shock! - Wall Street Journal op=ed, according to this article. I didn't check the reference myself.

But this is the reason why if I see ANY "American EXPERT"
quoted, my eyes glaze over and I won't read their lies /
distortions / falsehoods / propaganda.

Nor would I read any of their books, no matter how
high they reached on the "bestseller lists".
Those latter are stupid too for only books on any aspect of Islam, the Islamic world or U.S. foreign policy toward the Islamic world
which are explicitly approved by the Jewish community and its advocates are promoted to sell in America.

Anything telling the truth can be found, if anywhere, only on dusty shelves
of secondhand bookstores.

So here we have one New World Order journalist attacking and exposing others of the same ilk, just different branches.

I bet Fareed Zakaria has said little or no truth like this attempt regarding US policy toward present day Iran
since then. Probably his knuckles were rapped.

Oct 20, 2007

Conservatives have become surprisingly charitable about two of history's greatest mass murderers.




At a meeting with reporters last week, President Bush said that "if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." These were not the barbs of some neoconservative crank or sidelined politician looking for publicity. This was the president of the United States, invoking the specter of World War III if Iran gained even the [I]knowledge needed to make a nuclear weapon.

The American discussion about Iran has lost all connection to reality. Norman Podhoretz, the neoconservative ideologist whom Bush has consulted on this topic, has written that Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is "like Hitler … a revolutionary whose objective is to overturn the going international system and to replace it in the fullness of time with a new order dominated by Iran and ruled by the religio-political culture of Islamofascism." For this staggering proposition Podhoretz provides not a scintilla of evidence.
Here is the reality. Iran has an economy the size of Finland's and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion. It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?

When the relatively moderate Mohammed Khatami was elected president in Iran, American conservatives pointed out that he was just a figurehead. Real power, they said (correctly), especially control of the military and police, was wielded by the unelected "Supreme Leader," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Now that Ahmadinejad is president, they claim his finger is on the button. (Oh wait, Iran doesn't have a nuclear button yet and won't for at least three to eight years, according to the CIA, by which point Ahmadinejad may not be president anymore. But these are just facts.)

In a speech last week, Rudy Giuliani said that while the Soviet Union and China could be deterred during the cold war, Iran can't be. The Soviet and Chinese regimes had a "residual rationality," he explained. Hmm. Stalin and Mao—who casually ordered the deaths of millions of their own people, fomented insurgencies and revolutions, and starved whole regions that opposed them—were rational folk. But not Ahmadinejad, who has done what that compares? One of the bizarre twists of the current Iran hysteria is that conservatives have become surprisingly charitable about two of history's greatest mass murderers.

If I had to choose whom to describe as a madman, North Korea's Kim Jong Il or Ahmadinejad, I do not think there is really any contest. A decade ago Kim Jong Il allowed a famine to kill 2 million of his own people, forcing the others to survive by eating grass, while he imported gallons of expensive French wine. He has sold nuclear technology to other rogue states and threatened his neighbors with test-firings of rockets and missiles. Yet the United States will be participating in international relief efforts to Pyongyang worth billions of dollars.

We're on a path to irreversible confrontation with a country we know almost nothing about. The United States government has had no diplomats in Iran for almost 30 years. American officials have barely met with any senior Iranian politicians or officials. We have no contact with the country's vibrant civil society. Iran is a black hole to us—just as Iraq had become in 2003.

The one time we seriously negotiated with Tehran was in the closing days of the war in Afghanistan, in order to create a new political order in the country. Bush's representative to the Bonn conference, James Dobbins, says that "the Iranians were very professional, straightforward, reliable and helpful. They were also critical to our success. They persuaded the Northern Alliance to make the final concessions that we asked for." Dobbins says the Iranians made overtures to have better relations with the United States through him and others in 2001 and later, but got no reply. Even after the Axis of Evil speech, he recalls, they offered to cooperate in Afghanistan. Dobbins took the proposal to a principals meeting in Washington only to have it met with dead silence. The then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, he says, "looked down and rustled his papers." No reply was ever sent back to the Iranians. Why bother? They're mad.

Last year, the Princeton scholar, Bernard Lewis, a close adviser to Bush and Vice President **** Cheney, wrote an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal predicting that on Aug. 22, 2006, President Ahmadinejad was going to end the world. The date, he explained, "is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the Prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to 'the farthest mosque,' usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back. This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world" (my emphasis). This would all be funny if it weren't so dangerous

faye
08-22-2011, 01:51 AM
the israelis will never let up on iran. they want america to invade. they are screaming for it. there was so much anti iran propaganda in the main murdoch paper in australia, i nearly wrote to tell them to have an 'anti iran propaganda' section. lately though, the propaganda has turned upon china.